Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 F.3d 392 - Meza v. Livingston

Meza v. Livingston’s Empirical Analysis

607 F.3d 392 · 2010

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
3
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Gagnon v. Scarpelli

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

  1. “the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Due process requires: (1) notice that the financial and other resource information Pretrial Services officers collect is for the purpose of determining a misdemeanor arrestee's eligibility for release or detention; (2) a hearing at which the arrestee has an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; (3) an impartial decisionmaker; (4) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on to find that a secured financial condition is the only reasonable way to assure the arrestee's appearance at hearings and law-abiding behavior before trial; and (5) timely proceedings within 24 hours of arrest. 5”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The first question asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.”
    4 later decisions 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.