McDowell v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.2d 1302 · 1988
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Adams v. Metiva (1994), Russo v. City of Cincinnati (1992)
56 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Rochin v. People of California · Tennessee v. Garner · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · Johnson v. Glick · Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“continues throughout the time the person remains in the custody of the arresting officers”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Austin · Riley v. Dorton“[O]ur court has repeatedly found that a totally gratuitous blow with a policeman's nightstick may cross the constitutional line, and . . . we do not believe that a serious or permanent injury is a prerequisite to a claim under Section 1983.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.... “Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight---- The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.