Townsend v. Vallas’s Empirical Analysis
256 F.3d 661 · 2001
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Williams v. Seniff (2003), Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc. (2002)
36 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[an] employee's good name, reputation, honor or integrity [was] called into question in a manner that ma[de] it virtually impossible for the employee to find new employment in his chosen field,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In our view, the temporary loss of this possibility for additional income does not warrant the characterization [of a property interest] given by the district court. We have recognized that removal or suspension from a tenured position might produce indirect economic effects that trigger the protection of the Due Process Clause. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the temporary loss of this possibility for additional income is the sort of deprivation that triggers the protection of federal due process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to state a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest in one’s post employment reputation, a plaintiff is required to show that (1) he was stigmatized by the defendant’s conduct, (2) the stigmatizing information was publicly disclosed, and (3) he suffered a tangible loss of other employment opportunities as a result of public disclosure.”
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.