Biddle v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 673 · 1993
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Payne v. Pauley (2003), Abbott v. Sangamon County (2013)
42 federal appellate · 6 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Malley v. Briggs
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile an arresting officer's subjective knowledge of facts sufficient to constitute probable cause is central to evaluation of the propriety of an arrest, we do not believe that the officer's view of the legal basis for the arrest is important. Under the principles of Harlow v. Fitzgerald and the fourth amendment, an objective standard applies where the parties present alternative legal justifications for an arrest. The issue is whether a reasonably competent officer, with knowledge of the facts actually known by the arresting officer, would have concluded that probable cause existed to arrest for the offense offered as justification.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“in § 1983 actions for false arrest, probable cause need not have existed for the charge for which the plaintiff was arrested, so long as probable cause existed for arrest on a closely related charge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Row v. Holt · Jones v. Watson“First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred. In this Circuit, we ask “whether the law was clear in relation to the specific facts confronting the public official when he or she acted.” Apostol v. Landau, 957 F.2d 339, 341 (7th Cir.1992). Second, we evaluate the objective legal reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct. We inquire whether reasonably competent officials would agree on the ap plication of the clearly established right to a given set of facts, (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions 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.