Hillman v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2018
1 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Goss v. Lopez · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Duffield v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. · Ingraham v. Wright · Bignall v. North Idaho College
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants assert ... that, if this court finds that plaintiff was afforded Goss due process, then the federal court is without jurisdiction to decide a claim that defendants violated their own rules because such a claim would be a state law issue. The court disagrees with this proposition because plaintiff may still have a liberty and property interest at stake. In some situations, due process could be denied where rules of procedure are set forth establishing certain rights and then such rules are not followed. Hillman v. Elliot, 436 F.Supp. 812, 817 (W.D.Va.1977) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court finds that plaintiff was afforded due process as required by Goss , and defendants, by substantially complying with their disciplinary rules of suspension which go well beyond the constitutional minimum, satisfied the due process clause.”
1 later decision 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.