Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 F.2d 870 - Beitzell v. Jeffrey

Beitzell v. Jeffrey’s Empirical Analysis

643 F.2d 870 · 1981

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
9
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 49 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985), Coyne v. City of Somerville (1992)

56 federal appellate · 49 district · 16 state decisions

7501981199020002010decided

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

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis

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

  1. “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of a constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the Fourteenth Amendment procedurally protects reputation only where (1) government action threatens it, (2) with unusually serious harm, (3) as evidenced by the fact that employment (or some other right or status) is affected.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “set objective standards conferring an automatic right to tenure, nor did they create a reasonable expectation of receiving it.”
    3 later decisions 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.