Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 F.2d 1160 - Williams v. Day

Williams v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

553 F.2d 1160 · 1977

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2006

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

1401977198019902000decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Bishop v. Wood · Babich v. United States · Hortonville Joint School District No v. Hortonville Education Association

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

  1. “Even if we assume that such a hearing was mandated by the due process clause, the claim of partiality lacks substance. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Educational Ass’n., 426 U.S. 482, 493 , 96 S.Ct. 2308, 2314 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976): Mere familiarity with the facts of a case gained by an agency in the performance of its statutory role does not, however, disqualify a decisionmaker * * *. Nor is a decisionmaker disqualified simply because he has taken a position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute, in the absence of a showing that he is not ‘capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.’”
    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.