Ross v. Horn’s Empirical Analysis
598 F.2d 1312 · 1979
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Institutionalized Juveniles S v. Secretary of Public Welfare C 83-1696 83-1722 (1985), Furtado v. Bishop (1980)
43 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 204 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 301 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 303 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison · Fusari v. Steinberg · California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)n assessing who is a prevailing party, we look to the substance of the litigation's outcome.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“catalyst for the implementation of all or any of the reform measures,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, 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 finally, the Government’s interest including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilkinson v. Abrams
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.