Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 F.3d 105 - Kapps v. Wing

Kapps v. Wing’s Empirical Analysis

404 F.3d 105 · 2005

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
4
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Yuen Jin v. Mukasey (2008), Reynolds v. Giuliani (2007)

24 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions

470200520102020decided

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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Goldberg v. Kelly · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

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

  1. “[i]n determining whether a given benefits regime creates a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, we look to the statutes and regulations governing the distribution of benefits.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Where those statutes or regulations meaningfully channel official discretion by mandating a defined administrative outcome, a property interest will be found to exist.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) 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 (3) the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.