Shirokey v. Marth’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten (1994), 103 Ohio App. 3d 80 - Cook v. City of Cincinnati (1995)
42 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))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ * * * Where the right asserted is a constitutional right, federal courts have accorded different treatment, under Section 1983, to different rights. Where the right deprived under color of state law is a substantive right — for example, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech or the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches — a Section 1983 suit is always available regardless of supplemental state remedies. * * * Where, however, the claim asserted rests on the deprivation of a property interest alone, the constitutional right invoked is the procedural due process right to notice and hearing. * * * The constitutional infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment is not * * * the deprivation of a property interest per se, but is instead the manner by which the property is taken. * * * ’ (Emphasis sic.) “* * * As the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, observed: ‘the Constitution must not be trivialized by being dragged into every personnel dispute in state and local government. Disputes over overtime, over work assignments, over lunch and coffee breaks do not implicate the great objects of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ Brown v. Brienen (C.A.7, 1983), 722 F.2d 360, 365 .” Shirokey at 118 , 585 N.E.2d at 411-412 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. ***”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * ‘[A]n employee deprived of a property interest in a specific benefit, term, or condition of employment, suffers a loss which is defined easily * * * and therefore, any interference with that interest is redressed adequately in a state breach of contract action’ * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.