Jenkins Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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. “not relevant that a relocation site will result in lost profits, higher overhead costs, or even prove commercially unfeasible for an adult business,” a physical "obstacle that cannot reasonably be overcome renders the site unavailable”). 18 . One could argue that the issue of "narrowly tailored” was raised in the Counts on "Altemalive Avenues of Communication.” 19 . The court stated: Since Anderson, this court has devoted much effort to staking out an operation standard somewhere between the Anderson Court's polar extremes: "in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 969 F. Supp. 1288 - Centerfold Club, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

2. “For instance, the statement in Lassiter that “[f]or qualified immunity to be surrendered, pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances,” has been read by some to indicate that qualified immunity is due every official unless this court has addressed essentially identical facts in a previous case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 969 F. Supp. 1288 - Centerfold Club, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

3. “Likewise, other cases have been misconstrued. We can all agree that “[i]f ease law, in factual terms has not staked out a bright line, qualified immunity almost always protects the defendant,” Post v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552 , 1557 (11th Cir.1993), modified, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir.1994). This is another restatement of the Anderson requirement that the law must be apparent, but it does not answer the question “how bright?” or define the set of cases gestured towards by “almost.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 969 F. Supp. 1288 - Centerfold Club, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg