Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 F.3d 189 - Green v. Bauvi

Green v. Bauvi’s Empirical Analysis

46 F.3d 189 · 1995

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
November 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Ciambriello v. County of Nassau (2002), Rodriguez v. Phillips (1995)

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

350199520002010decided

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

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Hewitt v. Helms · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.

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

  1. “[t]he two threshold questions ... are whether the plaintiff possessed a liberty or property interest protected by the United States Constitution or federal statutes and, if so, what process was due before the plaintiff could be deprived of that interest.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Keeplock is a form of disciplinary confinement segregating an inmate from other inmates and depriving him of participation in normal prison activities.... ” Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189, 192 (2d Cir.1995). 2 . In its Memorandum of Law, the Government states that”
    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.