Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 U.S. 337 - Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

3,988
cited by 3,988 later decisions
139
cited 139 times by the Supreme Court
48
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

826 federal appellate · 434 district · 1,354 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,988 later decisions (139 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)

826 federal appellate · 434 district · 1,354 state decisions — followed in 48 states

2.3k01969197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Rochin v. People of California · Pennoyer v. Neff · Bowles v. Willingham

Cited together with Fuentes v. Shevin · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · Goldberg v. Kelly · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. · Bell v. Burson

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 3,988 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Since the essential reason for the requirement of a prior hearing is to prevent unfair and mistaken deprivations of property, ... it is axiomatic that the hearing must provide a real test. `(D)ue process is afforded only by the kinds of "notice”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(s)ince this deprivation cannot be characterized as de minimis, (the debtor) must be accorded the usual requisites of procedural due process.”
    9 later decisions 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.