United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.3d 392 · 2003
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 17 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 204 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Kaucher, Estate of Smith v. Marasco (2003)
29 federal appellate · 17 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Wolff v. McDonnell · Daniels v. Williams · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Rochin v. People of California
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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]ur cases have repeatedly acknowledged . . . that the meaning of [the shocks the conscience] standard varies depending on the factual context.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]very appeal by a disappointed developer from an adverse ruling of the local planning board involves some claim" of abuse of legal authority, but “[i]t is not enough simply to give these state law claims constitutional labels such as ‘due process’ or ‘equal protection! in order to raise a substantial federal question under section 1983.” ... Land-use decisions are matters of local concern, and such disputes should not be transformed into substantive due process elaims[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.