Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 F.3d 368 - Miller

Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Kaucher, Brown

9 district · 2 state decisions

5201990200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Mathews v. Eldridge · Estelle v. Gamble · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell

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

  1. “[E]xcept in those cases involving either true split-second decisions or . . . those in which officials have the luxury of relaxed deliberation, an official's conduct may create state-created danger liability if it exhibits a level of gross negligence or arbitrariness that shocks the conscience.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “exact degree of wrongfulness necessary to reach the `conscience-shocking' level depends upon the circumstances of a particular case,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[O]ur prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
    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.