Wakinekona v. Olim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “It is true that there is general language in the majority opinion in Parratt suggesting that where a deprivation occurs because a state fails to follow its procedure rather than because it follows its procedure, and there is a state court remedy, then the state has provided all the process that is due.... But this statement must be read in the context in which it was made, that of a tortious deprivation of property for which the state provides a tort remedy. A broader reading that would apply to the present case would remit all § 1983 cases to state courts whenever the conduct complained of violated state law as well as the federal Constitution. The result would be to read into § 1983 a requirement of exhaustion that has consistently been rejected by the federal courts.... For this reason, also, we conclude that Parratt does not control the present case. 5”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pantoja v. City of Gonzales

2. “demonstrate the existence of a right rooted in state law that limits the prison administrator's discretion to transfer him....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Fierro v. MacDougal

3. “dealing with a liberty interest [are] of a wholly different nature”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Haygood v. Younger