Turner v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
240 federal appellate · 103 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,777 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States (2015), 133 S. Ct. 2072 - Peugh v. United States (2013)
240 federal appellate · 103 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 34 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 42 U.S.C. § 608 (§ 408 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Johnson v. Zerbst · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Wolff v. McDonnell
Cited together with Stern v. Marshall · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Freeman v. United States · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Stern v. Marshall
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 1,777 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent individual who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration!;] . . . [i]n particular, that Clause does not require the provision of counsel where the opposing parent or other custodian (to whom support funds are owed) is not represented by counsel and the State provides alternative procedural safeguards equivalent to those we have mentioned.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the nature of 'the private interest that will be affected,' (2) the comparative 'risk' of an 'erroneous deprivation of that interest with and without 'additional or substitute procedural safeguards,' and (3) the nature and magnitude of any countervailing interest in not providing 'additional or substitute procedural requirement[s].'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again.”
4 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.