Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 681 F.2d 1091 - Shango v. Jurich

Shango v. Jurich’s Empirical Analysis

681 F.2d 1091 · 1982

Citation profile

352
cited by 352 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

141 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 352 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Olim v. Wakinekona (1983), Roland Machinery Company v. Dresser Industries Inc (1984)

141 federal appellate · 10 district · 18 state decisions

16901982199020002010decided

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. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell

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

  1. “'[a] liberty interest is of course a substantive interest of an individual; it cannot be the right to demand needless formality.' Process is not an end in itself. Its constitutional purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement.”
    30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “intentional or purposeful discrimination”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “implies that the decisionmaker singled out a particular group for disparate treatment and selected his course of action at least in part for the purpose of causing its adverse effects on the identifiable group.”
    7 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.