549 F. Supp. 574 - Juncker v. Tinney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[tjhis case involves a tortious loss of a prisoner’s property as a result of a random and unauthorized act by a state employee. In such a case, the loss is not a result of some established state procedure and the State cannot predict precisely when the loss will occur. It is difficult to conceive of how the State could provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation takes place. The loss of property, although attributable to the State as action under “color of law,” is in almost all cases beyond the control of the State. Indeed, in most cases it is not only impracticable, but impossible to provide a meaningful hearing before the deprivation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 548 F. Supp. 165 - Moore v. Gluckstern

2. ““The logic of Parratt permits no principled distinction between deprivations of property and liberty interests. If a deprivation results from a ‘random and unauthorized act’ by a State official, the State is no more able to predict the deprivation, and a pre-deprivation hearing is no more possible, when the deprivation involves a liberty interest than when it involves a property interest. Therefore, if plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in state court, that should satisfy the requirements of due process and plaintiff should not be permitted to bring a § 1983 claim in federal court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thibodeaux v. Bordelon

3. “(1)the complaint states a claim under some constitutional or federal statutory provision other than the Due Process Clause; (2) the complaint alleges that the deprivation of plaintiff’s right to life, liberty or property resulted from an established state procedure; (3) the plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy under state law; or (4) the complaint states a substantive due process claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 548 F. Supp. 165 - Moore v. Gluckstern