Macri v. King County’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.3d 1125 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Moore v. City of East Cleveland · Agins v. City of Tiburon · Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exception to the general rule [that a plaintiff can seek relief under multiple constitutional theories], recognized out of a well-placed reluctance to expand the concept of substantivedue process,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“held that when an explicit textual provision of the Constitution protects against the challenged government action, the claim must be analyzed under that specific provision alone and not under the more general guarantee of substantive due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Fifth Amendment is not offended by the government taking property, but only by the government taking property without just compensation.”
1 later decision 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.