Vincent v. Yelich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “[a]s a general matter, [fjederal constitutional standards rather than state law define the requirements of procedural due process.... State court decisions that rejected Earley []’s holding could not disestablish the federal right to due process for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis.... [A] decision by a state court contrary to a holding of this court cannot unsettle or de-establish the clarity of federal law because we begin our inquiry by looking to binding precedent [and i]f the right is clearly established by decisional authority of the Supreme Court or this Circuit, our inquiry should come to an end. Because Earleyf's] explicit ruling that [DOCS] has no ... power to alter a sentence clearly established the right plaintiffs seek to vindicate, our inquiry ends there.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 140 F. Supp. 3d 294 - Betances v. Fischer

2. “The defendant may have directly participated in the infraction.... A supervisory official, after learning of the violation through a report or appeal, may have failed to remedy the wrong.... A supervisory official may be liable because he or she created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed such a policy or custom to continue.... Lastly, a supervisory official may be personally liable if he or she was grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful condition or event....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 96 F. Supp. 3d 370 - Hassell v. Fischer

3. “[W]e think it clear that DOCS, which (a) unconstitutionally imposed PRS, (b) was custodian of the records in which PRS was imposed and from which PRS was required to be excised (in the absence of appropriate resentencing), and (c) resumed custody of persons who violated the unconstitutionally imposed conditions and were penalized for those violations by reimprisonment, had an obli gation to at least attempt to cease its administrative and custodial operations that had been held to violate federal law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 96 F. Supp. 3d 370 - Hassell v. Fischer