City of Los Angeles v. David’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 37 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably United States v. Alisal Water Corporation (2005), 162 Cal. App. 4th 383 - People v. Litmon (2008)
17 federal appellate · 37 district · 36 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedDavid v. City of Los Angeles (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Mallen · Stypmann v. City & County of San Francisco · Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc.
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he government interest in delaying the hearing, on the other hand, is quite substantial. It takes time to organize hearings: there are only so may courtrooms and presiding officials; the city has to contact the towing officer and arrange for his appearance; the city may have to find a substitute to cover that officer’s responsibilities while he attends the hearing. And, the city must do this for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of claimants each month. Given the minimal private interest, I can’t say that the city was required to drop everything and give David an immediate hearing for his $134.50.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here 'is a point at which an unjustified delay in completing a post-deprivation proceeding would become a constitutional violation.'”
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.