Rodriguez v. Swartz’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.3d 719 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2734 · 18 U.S.C. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2234 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (§ 204 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 21 U.S.C. § 904 (§ 709 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 22 U.S.C. § 2669 · 22 U.S.C. § 2669 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ Ziglar ] makes plain that even though a Bivens action lies for some constitutional violations (like the Fourth Amendment claim in Bivens ), it does not lie for all violations (like the Fourth Amendment claim in [ Ziglar ] ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Rivera v. Samilo“just as national security cannot be used as a talisman to ward off inconvenient claims, neither does the mere incantation of the magic words 'foreign policy' cause a Bivens remedy to disappear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Elhady v. Pew“threat of damages liability could indeed increase the probability that a TSA agent would hesitate in making split-second decisions about suspicious passengers,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Elhady v. Pew
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.