Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 F.3d 406 - Alexandre v. Cortes

Alexandre v. Cortes’s Empirical Analysis

140 F.3d 406 · 1998

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
July 2017
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Pangburn v. Culbertson (1999), New York State National Organization for Women v. Pataki (2001)

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

160199820002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · Hudson v. Palmer · Fuentes v. Shevin

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “when a meaningful postdeprivation remedy [is] available at state law,” a state employee's intentional deprivation of property “[is] not actionable under § 1983” when the deprivation is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he existence of independent state relief does not defeat a Section 1983 claim where the deprivation complained of results from the operation of established state procedures.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[r]eleased to claimant upon presentation of a District Attorney's release”
    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.