Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 653 F.2d 1220 - Herrera v. Valentine

Herrera v. Valentine’s Empirical Analysis

653 F.2d 1220 · 1981

Citation profile

193
cited by 193 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

116 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 193 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2010 · most notably City of Canton v. Harris (1989), Memphis Community School District v. Stachura (1986)

116 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions

15901981199020002010decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Parratt v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona

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

  1. “[m]any substantive constitutional guarantees may be violated without accompanying consequential or 'actual' injury. If consequential injury were the touchstone for substantial compensatory awards, many blatant constitutional violations would remain unredressed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Our aim here is simply to distinguish the substantive rights involved in this case from the right that was involved in Carey. The Court in Carey determined that the procedural right at issue there was nothing more than a mechanical process designed to avoid the mistaken or wrongful infringements of other substantive constitutional guarantees. In this case, by contrast, substantive constitutional rights, highly prized in our federal system of government, are clearly at stake.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “To secure complete satisfaction, damage awards must take account of the intrinsic dimension that envelopes each substantive constitutional right.”
    2 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.