Hammer v. Gross’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.2d 1200 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Hammer v. Gross (1991), Valencia v. Wiggins (1993)
12 federal appellate · 6 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Parratt v. Taylor · Schmerber v. State of California · Rochin v. People of California · Tennessee v. Garner
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We think that jurisprudence also validates the particular application of force to effectuate the search and seizure which occurred in this case. ... Although we, like the California Supreme Court, recognize that the forcible removal of a blood sample from a DUI suspect will virtually always be `unpleasant, undignified and undesirable' People v. Superior Court (Hawkins) 6 Cal.3rd at 764, 100 Cal.Rptr. at 286, 493 P.2d at 1150, it will not always beand was not in this caseunconstitutional. Because the amount of force applied was minimal, and did not exceed the amount necessary to effect the otherwise lawful search for and seizure of blood alcohol evidence which occurred in the circumstances of this case, we hold as a matter of law that (the officers') conduct was not `unreasonable' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lanier““Because it involves the use of physical compulsion in connection with a search and seizure conducted as an incident of his arrest, Hammer’s ‘excessive force’ claim is properly analyzed under Fourth Amendment principles.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and that such procedure can amount to a meaningful interference with a possessory interest in one's bodily fluid so as to be a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sack v. Lowder
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.