Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 514 F.3d 107 - Clark v. Boscher

Clark v. Boscher’s Empirical Analysis

514 F.3d 107 · 2008

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 56 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Maldonado v. Fontanes (2009), Fantini v. Salem State College (2009)

11 federal appellate · 56 district · 1 state decisions

420200820102020decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College · Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook · Garita Hotel Limited Partnership Etc v. Ponce Federal Bank Fsb · Amsden v. Moran

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

  1. “Substantive due process is a constitutional cause of action that leaves the door “slightly a jar for federal relief in truly horrendous situations.” Néstor Colón-Medina & Sucesores, Inc. v. Custodio, 964 F.2d 32, 45 (1st Cir.1992). In order to assert a valid substantive due process claim, [the plaintiff has] to prove that [he] suffered the deprivation of an established life, liberty, or property interest, and that such deprivation occurred through governmental action that shocks the conscience. Pagán v. Calderón, 448 F.3d 16, 32 (1st Cir.2006); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 33-34 (1st Cir.2005).”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We have repeatedly held that the substantive due process doctrine may not, in the ordinary course, be invoked to challenge discretionary permitting or licensing determinations of state or local decisionmakers, whether those decisions are right or wrong.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was treated differently from others similarly situated ... based on impermissible considerations.”
    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.