Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 U.S. 624 - Codd v. Velger

Codd v. Velger’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

1,986
cited by 1,986 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

717 federal appellate · 194 district · 211 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,986 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Sandin v. Conner (1995), Carey v. Piphus (1978)

717 federal appellate · 194 district · 211 state decisions — followed in 29 states

7870197719801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedVelger v. Cawley (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Perry v. Sindermann

Cited together with Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bishop v. Wood · Paul v. Davis · Perry v. Sindermann · Mathews v. Eldridge

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 1,986 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]f the hearing mandated by the Due Process Clause is to serve any useful purpose, there must be some factual dispute between an employer and a discharged employee which has some significant bearing on the employee's reputation.”
    42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Only if the employer creates and disseminates a false and defamatory impression about the employee in connection with his termination is such a hearing required.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he hearing required where a nontenured employee has been stigmatized in the course of a decision to terminate [her] employment is solely to provide the person an opportunity to clear [her] name.”
    20 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.