Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 690 F.2d 1198 - Earnest v. Lowentritt

Earnest v. Lowentritt’s Empirical Analysis

690 F.2d 1198 · 1982

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
3
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Martinez v. Colon (1995), Hale v. Harney (1986)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

37019821990200020102020decided

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. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Stump v. Sparkman · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The Supreme Court has characterized the private use of state legal procedures for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment as attributable to the state only in situations where the state has created a system which allows state officials to attach property on ex parte application. *** It is in these ex parte, prejudgment situations that the courts have found the state is itself participating in the deprivation of property, and the constitutional requirements of due process apply. Private misuse of a state statute alone does not describe conduct that can be attributed to the state. It is the procedural scheme created by the statute that is state action, and therefore subject to constitutional restraints. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., supra. The absence of a full adversary adjudication prior to seizure triggers the constitutional due process issue since state officers typically act jointly with a private creditor in securing the property in dispute.” (Emphasis in original.) ( 690 F.2d at 1201 .)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]nitiation of foreclosure proceedings pursuant to a mortgage implicates no ... authority of state law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “transform every foreclosure action between private parties into state action of constitutional dimension.”
    1 later decision 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.