Melear v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a general proposition, we will not rigidly define the applicable body of law in determining whether relevant legal rules were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Relying solely on Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court cases, for example, would be excessively formalistic, but they will loom largest in our inquiries. In determining what the relevant law is, then, a court must necessarily exercise some discretion in determining the relevance of particular law under the facts and circumstances of each case, looking at such factors as the overall weight of authority, and the status of the courts that render substantively relevant decisions, as well as the jurisdiction of the courts that render substantively relevant decisions.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. McClendon v. City of Columbia · Lincoln v. Turner

2. “a full, active participant in the search, not a mere bystander,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bonivert v. City of Clarkston · James James v. Tg Sadler

3. “[The officer] was a full, active participant in the search, not a mere bystander.... Because the jury could properly have found that the search was unconstitutional, it was also justified in finding both officers liable for their integral participation in the violation.”); Hopkins v. Bonvi-cino, 573 F.3d 752 , 770 (9th Cir.2009) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Berry v. Leslie