James v. Rowlands’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “[t]o create a right protected by the Due Process Clause, the state law ‘must provide more than merely procedure; it must protect some substantive end.’ The California statutes that James contends required the officials to notify him do not, even under James’s construction, establish any substantive predicates or mandate any outcomes. At most, they simply require notice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 740 F. Supp. 2d 1269 - Elliott v. Martinez

2. “[ojfficials may remove a child from the custody of its parent without prior judicial authorization only if the information they possess at the time of the seizure is such as provides reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 957 F. Supp. 2d 1213 - DeBiaso v. Spitz