Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 398 F.3d 899 - Tun v. Whitticker

Tun v. Whitticker’s Empirical Analysis

398 F.3d 899 · 2005

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
July 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Geinosky v. City of Chicago (2012), Christensen v. County of Boone (2007)

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

240200520102020decided

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. § 636

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mitchell v. Forsyth · County of Sacramento v. Lewis

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

  1. “It is one thing to say that officials acted badly, even tortiously, but-and this is the essential point-it is quite another to say that their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Section] 1983 does not extend the right to relitigate in federal court evidentiary questions arising in school disciplinary proceedings or the proper construction of school regulations.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.”
    2 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.