Hydrick v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 978 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens (2008), Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (2008)
10 federal appellate · 9 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Creighton · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under the law of the case doctrine, a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court, in the same case.” For the law of the case doctrine to apply, “the issue in question must have been ‘decided explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While Jones, Neer [Andrews v. Neer, 253 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir.2001) ], and Seling [Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 , 121 S.Ct. 727 , 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001) ] are more recent cases, they do little more than restate the contours of law clearly established in Youngberg [Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 , 102 S.Ct. 2452 , 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) ], a 1982 case, and Bell [Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)], a 1979 case. Seling essentially restates the Youngberg test, and Jones does little more than connect the line between Youngberg and SVPs based on California’s argument that the statute should be construed as a civil confinement statute. We believe a reasonable official reading Youngberg would have sufficient notice that they would be held to Youngberg’s standards of due process. 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“1 A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person “does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” [citation] Indeed, the “requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” [citation]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Ollison
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.