Kawaoka’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale (1998), Thorp v. Town of Lebanon (2000)
4 district · 12 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f it is `at least fairly debatable' that the [government's] conduct is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, there has been no violation of substantive due process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We have held that MacDonald and Williamson require a final decision by the government agency that inflicts a concrete harm on the landowner. Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988). Typically, before a decision is final the landowner must have submitted one formal development plan and sought a variance from any regulations barring development in the proposed plan that have been denied. Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d 567, 569 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); Kinzli, 818 F.2d at 1454-55 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o establish a violation of substantive due process, the [plaintiffs] are required to prove that the [enactment of RCW 59.18.440 and the TRAO] was “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.””
2 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.