Patsy v. Florida International University’s Empirical Analysis
634 F.2d 900 · 1981
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. (1982), McCarthy v. Madigan (1992)
67 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1342 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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 · Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to avoid premature interruption of the administrative process; (2) to let the agency develop the necessary factual background upon which decisions should be based; (3) to permit the agency to exercise its discretion or apply its expertise; (4) to improve the efficiency of the administrative process; (5) to conserve scarce judicial resources, since the complaining party may be successful in vindicating rights in the administrative process and the courts may never have to intervene; (6) to give the agency a chance to discover and correct its own errors; and (7) to avoid the possibility that “frequent and deliberate flouting of administrative processes could weaken the effectiveness of an agency by encouraging people to ignore its procedures.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ejxhaustion is not required when the prescribed administrative remedy is plainly inadequate because either no remedy is available, the available remedy will not give relief commensurate with the claim, or the remedy would be so unreasonably delayed as to create a serious risk of irreparable injury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Florida statutes or administrative agency rules must provide an orderly system of review or of appeal. 2. Florida administrative agencies must be able to grant relief “more or less” commensurate with the relief requested by the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. 3. Relief from the Florida administrative agencies must be available within a reasonable time. 4. The procedures for obtaining relief through the Florida administrative agencies must be fair, must not be unduly burdensome, and must not be used to harass or otherwise discourage persons with legitimate claims. 5. Interim relief must be available through the Florida administrative agencies to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the plaintiffs’ rights under Section 1983 until the administrative process has been concluded.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.