In re Thompkins’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson (2011), 184 Ohio App. 3d 39 - State v. Graves (2009)
69 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 Anders v. California · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Santosky v. Kramer · Troxel v. Granville · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]or all its consequence, 'due process' has never been, and perhaps can never be, precisely defined. * * * Rather, the phrase expresses the requirement of 'fundamental fairness,' a requirement whose meaning can be as opaque as its importance is lofty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“No person shall * * * be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“designation implies that the person may in fact reside or receive mail at the designated address but for whatever reason has chosen not to sign for the certified mail. In that situation, a follow-up communication by ordinary mail is reasonably calculated to provide the interested party with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Such a communication, not returned, bears a strong inference that the intended recipient received the letter. (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 23; (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Craig v. Reynolds · In re J.T.
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.