Clark v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.3d 686 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pearson v. Callahan · Sandin v. Conner · Hope v. Pelzer · Hewitt v. Helms
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has held “a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very action in question has not previously been held unlawful.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 [ 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 ] (2002) (quotations and alteration omitted). As this court has pointed out, “[t]he Hope decision shifted the qualified immunity analysis from a scavenger hunt for prior cases with precisely the same facts toward the more relevant inquiry of whether the law put officials on fair notice that the described conduct was unconstitutional.” Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir.2007) (quotations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e cannot find Clark had a protected property interest in the frozen funds without first applying the Sandin test to his claim. But we have never before addressed the question of whether freezing a prison account in response to a garnishment summons imposes an atypical and significant hardship on an inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Neither did any Swpreme Court decision on point or clearly established authority from other circuits exist at the time of Wilson’s actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“holding that prisoners have a protected property interest in the funds in their prison trust accounts”). 3 . The first proposed amendment was denied for failure to comply with the district court’s local rules. The second proposed amendment was denied because Tenison sought to add Corrections Corporation of America (”
1 later decision 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.