Martinez v. Cui’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.3d 54 · 2010
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Pearson v. Callahan · Paul v. Davis · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Rochin v. People of California
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]laintiffs must show, not only that the official's actions shock the conscience, but also that the official violated a right otherwise protected by the substantive Due Process Clause.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be 'arbitrary in the constitutional sense,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a court must examine, on a case-by-case basis, the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the comments, their frequency, their possible relevancy to the real issues before the jury, the manner in which the parties and the court treated the comments, the strength of the case (e.g. whether it is a close case), and the verdict itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guzman v. Boeing Co.
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.