Davis v. Village Park II Realty Co.’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.2d 461 · 1978
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Memphis Community School District v. Stachura (1986), Gibson v. United States (1986)
35 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 12 U.S.C. § 1715Z · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Perry v. Sindermann · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Carey v. Piphus · Powell v. McCormack
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Plaintiffs’ damage claim was “sufficient to ensure that the requisite case or controversy exists,” ... “Although this may influence the size of the award, it does not preclude recovery. If the wrong complained of is a mere technical violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and she is unable to prove actual damage, she would nevertheless be entitled to a recovery of nominal dam-ages_ The availability of either nominal damages or substantial damages is sufficient to prevent this case from becoming moot.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The availability of either nominal damages or substantial damages is sufficient to prevent this case from becoming moot.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the right to procedural due process is “absolute” in the sense that it does not depend on the merits of a claimant’s substantive assertions, and because of the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, we believe that the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury. We therefore hold that if, upon remand, the District court determines that respondents’ suspensions were justified, respondent nevertheless will be entitled to recover nominal damages not to exceed one dollar from petitioners.”
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.