Reed v. Hoy’s Empirical Analysis
891 F.2d 1421 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2005
12 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Tennessee v. Garner · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Graham clearly overrules past Ninth Circuit precedent. See, e.g., Rinker [v. Napa County ], 831 F.2d [829] at 831-32 [9th Cir.1987]. However, the Supreme Court stated in Graham : Today we make explicit what was implicit in Gamer’s analysis and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force— deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure' of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard____ Graham, 109 S.Ct. at 1871 (citing Tennessee v. Gamer, 471 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1694 , 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). Thus, the Supreme Court does not view its decision as establishing a new principle of law. In addition, retroactive application will further, not retard, the policies embodied in Graham. Graham’s application of an objective reasonableness standard furthers the essential purposes of the fourth amendment — guaranteeing that free citizens are ‘ “secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures” of the person.’ Graham, 109 S.Ct. at 1871 (emphasis added). Conditioning liability for the use of excessive force upon a showing that the force was intentional, unprovoked and brutal would frustrate rather than further the purposes of the fourth amendment and the Graham rule. Finally, retroactive application will impose no substantial inequities. The paradigm case in which we have found ‘substantial inequitable results’ is one in which the new rule consists of a shortened st”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force — deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wlhether the application of deadly force is for the purpose of effectuating an arrest or other stop, or for the purpose of self-defense, it is an acquisition of physical control by a law enforcement official that implicates the victim's fourth amendment interest to be free from unreasonable seizures.”
1 later decision 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.