Hallstrom’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Olsen v. Idaho State Board of Medicine (2004), 43 Cal. 4th 415 - People v. Lewis (2008)
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Bell v. Wolfish · City of Canton v. Harris
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Examples of unreasonable delay are delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay’s sake. In evaluating whether the d'elay in a particular ease is unreasonable, however, courts must allow a substantial degree of flexibility. Courts cannot ignore the often unavoidable delays in transporting arrested persons from one facility to' another, handling, late-night bookings where no magistrate is readily available, obtaining the presence of an arresting officer who may be busy processing other suspects or securing the premises of an arrest, and other practical realities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d-1435 (9th Cir.1991) (em banc), we determined1 that in the context of providing for personal security, “[t]he requirement of conduct that amounts to ‘deliberate, indifference’ provides an appropriate balance of the pretrial detainees’ right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to manage the prisons.” Id. at 1443 . We noted that this standard would “protect against the deliberate, but arbitrary, choices by government.” Id. We remand to the district court for its determination on the merits, guided by standards at least as solicitous as those applied to pretrial detainees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[w]hile the government has a legitimate interest in orderly booking, this interest does not command as high of a priority, for example, as ensuring presence at trial or maintaining jail security.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Valdez v. Rosenbaum
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.