Kerrigan v. Boucher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “The state has not made these defendants agents of the State of Connecticut so as to require them while acting in their private capacity “to accord the procedural due process which the Fourteenth Amendment demands of a state.” McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc., 431 F.2d 1189, 1190 (2d Cir. 1970). Contra Hall v. Garson [citation]; Klim v. Jones [citation], Cf. Santiago v. McElroy, supra, 819 F. Supp. at 292 (where the challenged statute authorized only state officials to conduct sales of distrained property). I do not find persuasive the reasoning in the latter two cited cases that the fact that the liens can be imposed and the sales performed only because of specific statutory authority is enough for state action under Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 836 , 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), and Reitman v. Mulkey, supra, 387 U.S. 369 , 87 S.Ct. 1627 , 18 L.Ed.2d 830 [(1967)]. A similar argument was made and decisively rejected in McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc., supra, 431 F.2d at 1190 * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 386 F. Supp. 1251 - Parks v. " MR. FORD"