Carey v. Piphus’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2,555 federal appellate · 765 district · 713 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6,844 later decisions (110 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), Heck v. Humphrey (1994)
2,555 federal appellate · 765 district · 713 state decisions — followed in 46 states
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
reviewedJarius Piphus, a Minor and Geneva Piphus, Guardian Ad Litem for Jarius Piphus v. John D. Carey, People United to Save Humanity v. John D. Carey (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
Cited together with Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Memphis Community School District v. Stachura · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Wood v. Strickland · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
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 6,844 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.”
334 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. Rowe · Smith v. Wade“must be supported by competent evidence concerning the injury.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“there is no basis for such an award (of punitive damages) in this case. The District Court specifically found that petitioners did not act with a malicious intention.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Domegan v. Ponte · Ricard v. State
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.