Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 860 F.2d 1427 - Richardson v. Bonds

Richardson v. Bonds’s Empirical Analysis

860 F.2d 1427 · 1988

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
3
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Bank Leumi Le-Israel v. Lee (1991), Doe v. Rr Donnelley & Sons Company (1994)

52 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

6201988199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Malley v. Briggs · Kolender v. Lawson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “would [have recommended] itself to a reasonable police officer acting in good faith”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[I]t is well established that a party cannot create a genuine issue of fact by submitting an affidavit containing conclusory allegations which contradict plain admissions in prior deposition or otherwise sworn testimony.' "' Poff v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 3, 114 , 127 P.3d 646, 648 (quoting Richardson v. Bonds, 860 F.2d 1427, 1433 (7th Cir.1988)). . The regulations give examples of areas where the "discretion and independent judgment”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hile an arresting officer's subjective knowledge of facts sufficient to constitute probable cause is central to evaluation of the propriety of an arrest, we do not believe that the officer's view of the legal basis for the arrest is important. Under the principles of Harlow v. Fitzgerald and the fourth amendment, an objective standard applies where the parties present alternative legal justifications for an arrest. The issue is whether a reasonably competent officer, with knowledge of the facts actually known by the arresting officer, would have concluded that probable cause existed to arrest for the offense offered as justification.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.