Ahlers v. Schebil’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brady v. State of Maryland · Harlow v. Fitzgerald
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the tape showing Ahlers’ failure to respond to Stiltner’s attempts to contact him during night following his alleged sexual assault of her could be exculpatory evidence; (2) a genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on whether the Washtenaw County Defendants’ failure to preserve video and audio tapes of male booking area during one-half hour period when sexual assault allegedly occurred in female booking area violated officer’s rights to have that evidence disclosed; (3) a genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment for Defendants on the issue of whether probable cause to charge and arraign officer would not have been found but for Washtenaw County Defendants’ alleged misconduct during their preliminary investigation; (4) Ahlers’ right not to be charged and arraigned for a crime without probable cause was a clearly established constitutional right of which objectively reasonable officers know, for purposes of determining Washtenaw County Defendants’ qualified immunity; (5) sheriff would not be dismissed from Ahlers’ state law tort claims; (6) a genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on Ahlers’ claims that the Washtenaw County Defendants conspired to deprive him of his state law rights; (7) Ahlers’ allegations that Washtenaw County Defendants failed to disclose exculpatory evidence precluded summary judgment for Defendants in his action under Michigan law for malicious prosecution; and (8) limited discovery before it was s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause....”
1 later decision 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.