Craig v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably Coleman v. Watt (1994), Propert v. District of Columbia (1991)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Monroe v. Pape · Fuentes v. Shevin
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Some form of fair and impartial hearing, at which an owner is provided an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of . assessing charges against him and creating a lien against his car for those charges, must be provided within a prompt and reasonable time period. In addition, no legitimate governmental interest is served by, or justifies, the severe loss and hardship that withholding an owner’s car from him imposes. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hann v. Carson“While procedural due process is flexible and variable in different situations, the complete absence of any due process at all cannot be justified under the guise of flexibility. Craig v. Carson, 449 F.Supp. 385, 395 (M.D. Fla. 1978). See also Hann v. Carson, 462 F.Supp. 854, 867 (M.D.Fla.1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]here, despite a defendant's knowledge of the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates, he fails to restrain, acquiesces in, or ratifies it, and it deprives a person of his constitutional rights, the defendant will be vicariously liable”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.