Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 932 F. Supp. 2d 803 - John Does 1-4 v. Snyder

932 F. Supp. 2d 803 - John Does 1-4 v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Landgraf v. USI Film Products

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This second point is illustrated by the complaint’s averment that John Doe IV was told by police officials that borrowing a car three times is the threshold for regular operation. (See Compl. ¶ 31.) There is no explanation in either the complaint or the attached exhibits, and Defendants offer none in their briefing, of how police could have arrived at the conclusion that the borrowing of a vehicle three times equals regular operation. If the individual police officers arrived at this conclusion on their own, the reporting provision certainly raises red flags. On the other hand, and only hypothetically, if police based this three-event standard on some formal guidance published by the State and made available to the public, the vagueness objection to § 28.725(l)(g) may be obviated. A more robust factual record is essential in this regard. However, the court cannot dismiss Count VII simply because Defendants contend that the challenged provisions have been in effect for several years and Plaintiffs have allegedly satisfied the provisions.”
    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.