Greenidge v. Ruffin’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 789 · 1991
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Dickerson v. Mcclellan (1996), Salim I/o v. Proulx (1996)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Graham v. Connor · Johnson v. Morel · Sherrod v. Berry · Persinger v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Supreme Court's focus on the very moment when the officer makes the 'split-second judgments,' ... events which occurred before Officer Ruffin opened the car door and identified herself to the passengers are not probative of the reasonableness of Ruffin's decision to fire the shot.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. West v. Robert Raimond · Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md, and Prince Georges County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince Georges County Police Chief Wayne Cheney, Police Officer City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md, Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Wayne Cheney, Police Officer, and Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md Prince Georges County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince Georges County Police Chief City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md“allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. West v. Robert Raimond · Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md, and Prince Georges County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince Georges County Police Chief Wayne Cheney, Police Officer City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md, Dorothy C. Elliott, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III Archie Elliott, Jr., Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Archie Elliott, III v. Wayne Cheney, Police Officer, and Jason Leavitt, Police Officer for District Heights, Md Prince Georges County, Maryland David B. Mitchell, Prince Georges County Police Chief City of District Heights, Md Michael Conboy, Police Chief for District Heights, Md“). Accordingly, evidence that Officers Vanalmsick and Long created the need to use force by their actions prior to the moment of seizure is irrelevant to the issues presented here, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it. 3 26 Appellant next argues that the district court erred in excluding evidence that the officers should have responded in a different manner, or that the officers should have used a lesser degree of force. 4 However, the Fourth Amendment does not allow this type of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Drewitt v. Pratt · Schulz v. Long
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.