Singleton v. Cecil’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.3d 419 · 1999
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Moran v. Clarke (2002), Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University (2000)
35 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Bishop v. Wood · Meyer v. State of Nebraska
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." This clause has two components: the procedural due process and the substantive due process components. "Analysis of either a procedural or substantive due process claim must begin with an examination of the interest allegedly violated," and "[t]he possession of a protected life, liberty, or property interest is ... a condition precedent" to any due process claim. "[W]here no such interest exists, there can be no due process violation." Merely labeling a governmental action as arbitrary and capricious, in the absence of the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, will not support a substantive due process claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a public employee's interest in continued employment with a governmental employer is not so `fundamental' as to be protected by substantive due process”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Analysis of either a procedural or substantive due process claim must begin with an examination of the interest allegedly violated,”
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.