Britton v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 572 · 1980
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Wicks v. State (1980), Perry v. Rushen (1983)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ [Identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement will entail.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Wagner · State v. Wagner“In extending Eldridge to the criminal context, however, we wish to preserve the deference which federal courts have customarily displayed when called upon to review state rules of criminal procedure. ... Accordingly, we are unwilling to find a procedural due process violation under Eldridge unless the private interest in obtaining a particular procedure substantially outweighs the governmental interest in withholding it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Futrell v. State
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.