Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.3d 1093 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (§ 40221 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the issue is a deprivation resulting from a municipal policy ... neither the city nor individual officers can seek refuge under Parratt”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In this context, many of the cases eite[d in the] dissent are inapposite to the specific facts and legal arguments raised in the present case because the courts in those cases rejected the argument that statutes detailing procedures regarding general child abuse investigations and reporting could alone create a protected interest in such services, [citing cases] In this case, the [state] statute alone does not create the property interest. Rather, the court-issued restraining order, which specifically dictated that its terms must be enforced, and the state statute commanding the same, establish the basis for Ms. Gonzales’ procedural due process claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Ms. Gonzales alleges that... she was denied the process laid out in the statute. The police did not consider her request in a timely fashion, but instead repeatedly required her to call the station over several hours. The statute promised a process by which her restraining order would be given vitality through careful and prompt consideration of an enforcement request .... Denial of that process drained all of the value from her property interest in the restraining order.” Brief for Respondent 10.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.