Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 U.S. 38 - Robinson v. Hanrahan

Robinson v. Hanrahan’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

579
cited by 579 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
31
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

131 federal appellate · 24 district · 264 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 579 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), Dusenbery v. United States (2002)

131 federal appellate · 24 district · 264 state decisions — followed in 31 states

1910197219801990200020102020decided

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. · City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Schroeder v. City of New York · Walker v. City of Hutchinson

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

  1. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he State knew that [the owner] was not at the address to which the notice was mailed and, moreover, knew also that [the owner] could not get to that address since he was at that very time confined in the Cook County jail,”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “More specifically, Mullane held that notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to an individual whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable.”
    6 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.