Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 630 F.3d 519 - Khan v. Bland

Khan v. Bland’s Empirical Analysis

630 F.3d 519 · 2010

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1437F · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Parratt v. Taylor · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis · Collins v. City of Harker Heights

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

  1. “To claim a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, a per.son ... must have more than a unilateral expectation of [the claimed interest]. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim,of entitlement to it. A legitimate claim of entitlement to warrant a due process hearing oecurs only when the statutes [or] regulations in question establish a framework of factual conditions delimiting, entitlements which are capable of being explored at a due process hearing. A property interest of constitutional magnitude exists only when the state’s discretion is clearly limited such that the plaintiff cannot be denied the interest unless specific conditions are met.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To demonstrate a procedural due process violation of a property right, the plaintiff must establish that there is (1) a cognizable property interest; (2) a deprivation of that property interest; and (3) a denial of due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to any provision of the contract, federal law, or state law that would entitle him to continued participation in the Section 8 program beyond performance of his existing contracts”
    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.