Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 942 F.2d 257 - Torchinsky v. Siwinski

Torchinsky v. Siwinski’s Empirical Analysis

942 F.2d 257 · 1991

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
3
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Shaw v. Stroud (1994), Sharrar v. Felsing (1997)

57 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions

6401991200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Malley v. Briggs · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill

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

  1. “[T]he assessment whether a “reasonable person” in the official’s position would have known that his conduct would violate “clearly established” rights must be made on the basis of information actually possessed at the time by the official, or then readily available to him, and in light of the exigencies of time and circumstance in which the official took the action challenged. The tolerance thus accorded by the objective test to “good faith” mistakes of judgment traceable to unsettled law, or faulty information, or contextual exigencies, is deliberately designed to give protection “to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” in order to avoid undue inhibition of public officials in the discharge of their discretionary duties.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““When a police officer protects a suspect’s .rights by obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate, the officer should, in turn, receive some protection from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Otherwise, the threat of liability would force officers to continuously second-guess the considered decisions of magistrates.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.