Torres v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence is also contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 [ 95 S.Ct. 854, 863-64 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 ] (1975). In Gerstein , while recognizing that the conditions attached to a criminal defendant’s pretrial release may be so burdensome as to effect a significant restraint on liberty, the Court held that ordinarily the Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause determination for the commencing of criminal charges only when a defendant suffers extended restraints on his liberty other than merely having to appear for trial. Id. at 125 n. 26 [ 95 S.Ct. at 869 n. 26]. Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, in contrast, suggests that merely requiring a defendant to appear before a court for hearings or trial, standing alone, constitutes a deprivation of liberty of sufficient constitutional injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 975 F. Supp. 723 - Gallo v. City of Philadelphia

2. “Notwithstanding defendants’ claim, the case law in this Circuit prior to Albright (the Supreme Court in Albright recognized that the Third Circuit had the most expansive view of malicious prosecution claims) ... coupled with the clear implication in Albright that a malicious implication [sic] claim may be asserted under the Fourth Amendment and the weight of federal authority post-Albright leads us to the con- elusion that, at the time of the incident at issue here ... malicious prosecution was a sufficiently established constitutional violation under § 1983 so as to deprive defendants McLaughlin and Sunderhauf of their assertions of qualified immunity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Torres v. McLaughlin

3. “Absent any constitutionally-signifieant pretrial restraints on [plaintiffs] liberty, the weight of federal authority (at least as it stands today) holds that [plaintiff] may not maintain a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution based on the pre-incarceration time period.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnson v. City of Chester