Shanks v. Dressel’s Empirical Analysis
540 F.3d 1082 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 170 Cal. App. 4th 229 - Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008), Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2010)
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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 16 U.S.C. § 470A · 16 U.S.C. § 470E · 23 U.S.C. § 138 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · County of Sacramento v. Lewis
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' ... it must amount to an 'abuse of power' lacking any 'reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Only if the governing statute compels a result “upon compliance with certain criteria, none of which involve the exercise of discretion by the reviewing body,” does it create a constitutionally protected property interest. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2005); see also Foss v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 161 F.3d 584 , 588 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that “specific, mandatory” and “carefully circumscribed” requirements constrained discretion enough to give rise to property interest). Conversely, “a statute that grants the reviewing body unfettered discretion to approve or deny an application does not create a property right.” Thornton, 425 F.3d at 1164 . There is no protected property interest if “the reviewing body has discretion ... to impose licensing criteria of its own creation.” Id. at 1165 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution”
2 later decisions 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.