Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 SO2D 1244 - Fields v. State

Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably In re A.J.F. (2000), 41 So. 3d 438 - HARRAH'S BOSSIER CITY INV. CO. v. Bridges (2010)

26 state decisions

160199820002010decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams

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

  1. “Generally, before a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded some kind of hearing. However, this court has often recognized there may be circumstances involving a valid governmental interest which justify postponing the hearing until after the event. In re Adoption of B.G.S., 556 So.2d 545, 553 (La.1990). A deprivation without opportunity for a prior hearing or other effective substitute safeguard has been allowed in "extraordinary" or "truly unusual" situations. Paillot v. Wooton, 559 So.2d 758, 762 (La.1990). "[E]mergency action may be proper pending a hearing when matters of public health and safety are involved." Id. See also Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479 So.2d 891 (La.1985) and Bell v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 483 So.2d 945, 951 (La.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 827 , 107 S.Ct. 105 , 93 L.Ed.2d 55 (1986) ("[W]e note that there seems to be an emerging concept that in some instances due process is fulfilled by a `post deprivation' hearing. We believe that this view to procedural due process in certain situations is sound and is in support of our decision here.").”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Generally, before a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded some kind of hearing ... A deprivation without opportunity for a prior hearing or other effective substitute safeguard has been allowed in `extraordinary' or `truly unusual' situations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Very generally, due process requires some kind of hearing and notice thereof.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.