Velez v. Levy’s Empirical Analysis
401 F.3d 75 · 2005
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 215 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Segal v. City of New York (2006), Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin (2006)
32 federal appellate · 27 district · 4 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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Katz v. United States
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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'malicious and sadistic' abuses of power by government officials, intended to 'oppress or to cause injury' and designed for no legitimate government purpose, ' unquestionably shock the conscience,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allege governmental conduct that 'is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“What is allegedly shocking about what the defendants did is either their intent to violate [the] plaintiff's fundamental First Amendment rights, or their motive to deprive him -of liberty without .procedural: due process. In other words,- -what would serve to raise defendants’ actions beyond the wrongful to the unconscionable and shocking are facts which, if proven, would constitute, in themselves, specific constitutional violations. As [the] plaintiff has sought redress for these constitutional violations elsewhere in the complaint, his substantive due process claim must fail.”
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.