Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 583 F.2d 1229 - McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s Empirical Analysis

583 F.2d 1229 · 1978

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985), Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006)

26 federal appellate · 23 district · 2 state decisions

47019781980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer

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

  1. “would not upset sensitive state programs”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “'The doctrine of abstention, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. . . .'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““As the Supreme Court has written with regard to ‘property’ interests in general, to have such an interest one must have ‘more than a unilateral expectation’ or ‘an abstract need or desire’ for it. Rather, one must have ‘a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’ Such claims are ‘created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.’ Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. [564, 92 S.Ct. 2701 at 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 ] at 577 (emphasis added); see also Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. [341, 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 42 L.Ed.2d 684 ] at 344 & n. 7.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.