Farthing v. City of Shawnee’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 1131 · 1994
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 63 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hospital (1995), Watson v. University of Utah Medical Center (1996)
34 federal appellate · 63 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the root requirement of the Due Process Clause as being that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest. This principle requires some kind of a hearing prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. [[Image here]] [T]he pretermination hearing, though necessary, need not be elaborate. We have pointed out that [t]he formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings. In general, something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`a legitimate claim of entitlement' in continued employment, as opposed to a `unilateral expectation' or `an abstract need or desire' for it.”
4 later decisions 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.