Hill v. McIntyre’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.2d 271 · 1989
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Russo v. City of Cincinnati (1992), Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami (2004)
57 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · City of Canton v. Harris
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n action under Sec. 1983 does lie against an officer who obtains an invalid search warrant by making, in his affidavit, material false statements either knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reneer · John E. Reneer Martha Elaine Rafferty, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Crystal Rafferty and Jamie Rafferty and Daniel Reneer, on Behalf of James F. Reneer, a Minor v. Frank Wall Ronald Long Charles Newton Keith Haire Jerry Epison Jerald Nickens Tom Castlen and James Werthington““ ‘[T]he standard to be applied in determining the propriety of a grant or denial of a directed verdict is whether the evidence is such, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or considering the weight of the evidence, that there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. Only when it is clear that reasonable people could come to but one conclusion from the evidence should a court grant a motion for directed verdict.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Of course, officers executing search warrants must often damage property in order to perform their duty.... [T]he standard is reasonableness, and in a § 1983 action the District Court must determine not whether destruction was reasonably necessary to effectively execute a search warrant but whether the plaintiff has raised factual issues to be submitted to the jury on this point.”
2 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.