John E. Raper v. David J. Lucey’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 748 · 1973
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 36 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Lawrence v. Kozlowski (1976), Patsy v. Florida International University (1981)
41 federal appellate · 36 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 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.
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 · Goldberg v. Kelly · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Bell v. Burson
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiff’s] strong interest in adequate notice of the specific reasons behind the Registrar’s decision is clear. It is elementary that due process within administrative procedures requires the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ [Cite]. Although plaintiff, by exercising his statutory right to appeal an adverse decision of the Registrar, would have the opportunity to be heard by the Board, we are at a loss to comprehend how such a hearing could be said to be ‘meaningful’ if prior thereto the plaintiff was unaware of the grounds for the Registrar’s decision. Maintaining even an adequate presentation before the Board under these circumstances would seem a Herculean accomplishment. Without a statement of reasons, an applicant would not know what, or for that matter whether, to appeal. Reasons for governmental action affecting important individual rights must be timely proffered in order to satisfy due process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to evaluate whether plaintiff’s contentions state a cause of action under § 1983, we must focus our attention upon two separate and distinct questions. First, does the claim involve a federally protected constitutional right? Secondly, has the plaintiff alleged facts which indicate that defendants have infringed upon that right? 488 F.2d at 751 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Sargent“particular appellate standards or procedures.”
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.