Reams v. Irvin’s Empirical Analysis
561 F.3d 1258 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Pearson v. Callahan · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“individualized notice of state-law remedies which, like those at issue here, are established by published, generally available state statutes and case law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consult publicly available documents, discover [the] right to a hearing, and exercise that right”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before determining if post-deprivation procedures can provide adequate process, a court must apply the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 [ (1976) ], to determine whether pre-deprivation process was required ... Grayden, 345 F.3d at 1232-33 ; see also Bailey v. Bd. of County Com’rs of Alachua County, Fla., 956 F.2d 1112 , 1123 n. 12 (11th Cir.1992) (“The need for some form of predeprivation hearing is determined from balancing the competing interests at stake.”). Under Mathews , the specific dictates of due process in any given case are determined by considering: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) 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 (3) the government’s interest, “including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 .”
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.