370 F. Supp. 2d 79 - Johnson v. Quander’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2020
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1171 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1176 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14135 · 42 U.S.C. § 14135A · 42 U.S.C. § 14135B · 42 U.S.C. § 14135C · 42 U.S.C. § 14135E
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Graham v. Connor · Schmerber v. State 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Edüd 443 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “where a particular [Constitutional] Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of governmental behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 ); see also United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 , 272 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 1219 , 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (“Graham simply requires that if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.”). A substantive due process analysis is therefore inappropriate in this case if the plaintiffs claim is covered by the Fourth Amendment. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). Here, it is clear that the plaintiffs constitutional challenge is “covered by” the Fourth Amendment. As discussed above, it is without question that the taking of blood for DNA analysis is a “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment, and not the substantive due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, is the proper bench”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In resolving claims that an individual’s procedural due process rights have been violated, three factors are considered: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“because no private right of action exists under [ ] HIPAA.”
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.