Pride v. Does’s Empirical Analysis
997 F.2d 712 · 1993
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Rodriguez v. Phillips (1995), Trujillo v. Williams (2006)
25 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Graham v. Connor · Kentucky v. Graham · Hunter v. Bryant
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the pleadings [and] depositions ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he relevant question for the court is not whether Pride acted in a threatening manner but whether Officer Lamb reasonably believed so. See Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 , 112 S.Ct. 534, 537 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) .... Pride’s pleadings, while directly contesting certain factual issues, simply fail to demonstrate that Lamb acted unreasonably in response to the perceived threat to her safety and the safety of others in the room. Officer Lamb encountered an intoxicated and provocative individual who was in custody for disorderly conduct. When that individual acted in a manner which she reasonably perceived as threatening, she used moderate force to restrain him. The record reveals that [the] individual sustained minimal immediate injury and no permanent injury whatsoever as a result of that application of force. Under these circumstances, we hold that Officer Lamb’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Because Pride failed to show that Lamb violated his Fourth Amendment rights, his § 1983 claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e look to the substance of the pleadings and the course of the proceedings in order to determine whether the suit is for individual or official liability.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.