Bernard H. Greenhill v. Ray v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 5 · 1975
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz (1978), Mazaleski v. Treusdell (1977)
42 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Perry v. Sindermann · Goss v. Lopez · Wood v. Strickland
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We are well aware that there has long been a distinction between cases concerning disciplinary dismissals, on the one hand, and academic dismissals, on the other. See Brookins v. Bonnell, supra, 362 F.Supp. at 382 , and the cases collected therein. Our holding today is not an effort to blur that distinction but rather an acknowledgment that the dictates of due process, long recognized as applicable to disciplinary expulsions (and suspensions of significant length), may apply in other cases as well, where the particular circumstances meet the criteria articulated by the Supreme Court in Board of Regents v. Roth, supra [ 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 ], and Perry v. Sindermann, supra [ 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 ]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“accorded an opportunity to appear personally to contest [the allegations of academic deficiency]. We stop short, however, of requiring full trial-type procedures in such situations. A graduate or professional school is, after all, the best judge of its students' academic performance and their ability to master the required curriculum. The presence of attorneys or the imposition of rigid rules of cross-examination at a hearing for a student . . . would serve no useful purpose, notwithstanding that the dismissal in question may be of permanent duration. But an 'informal give-and-take' between the student and the administrative body dismissing him . . . would not unduly burden the educational process and would, at least, give the student 'the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.' " Id., at 9 (footnote omitted), quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S., at 584, 95 S.Ct., at 741. Respondent urges us to go even further than the Court of Appeals and require "the fundamental safeguards of representation by counsel, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses.”
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.