Austin’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Pierce v. Multnomah County (1996), Riley v. Dorton (1997)
7 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Fourth Amendment standard probably should be applied at least to the period prior to the time when the person arrested is arraigned, or formally charged, and remains in the custody ... of the arresting officer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the custodial continuum run[s] through initial arrest or seizure, post-arrest but pre-charge or pre-hearing custody, pretrial detention, and post-conviction incarceration”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“impose[s] restrictions on the treatment of the arrestee detained without a warrant”
2 later decisions 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.