Sivard v. Pulaski County’s Empirical Analysis
959 F.2d 662 · 1992
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Lee v. City of Los Angeles (2001), Ortega v. Christian (1996)
26 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Gerstein v. Pugh · Baker v. McCollan · County of Riverside v. McLaughlin · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“inexplicable nature of [plaintiff's] detention”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“liberty . . . without due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is possible that such a lengthy detention, unjustified by Sivard’s arrest for battery, might have been justified if carried out in response to a request from Massachusetts for Sivard’s extradition. It is undisputed that Massachusetts had indicted Sivard two months before his arrest in Indiana, and that Massachusetts issued an arrest warrant one month after his arrest in Indiana. What remain unknown is when Pulaski County and its officials learned of the charges against Sivard in Massachusetts. A detention while awaiting extradition cannot be justified as such until the detaining state is aware of the other state’s desire to try the detainee for another crime. If the defendants explain, and defend, their lengthy detention of Sivard as pre-extradition detention, they must show that they actually held him with the knowledge that he was wanted in another state. They have not done this. The officials who detained Sivard have not explained at what point they detained him pursuant to the extradition request of Massachusetts; we cannot say when the procedural requirements of the Extradition Act would begin to apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.