Lentsch v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 301 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Melton v. City of Oklahoma City (1991), Koerpel v. Heckler (1986)
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
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 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 · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Perry v. Sindermann · Paul v. Davis
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“defamation, standing alone, [is] not sufficient to establish a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The liberty interest that due process protects includes the individual's freedom to earn a living.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here might be cases in which a State refused to re-employ a person under such circumstances that interests in lib erty would be implicated. But this is not such a case. The State, in declining to rehire the respondent, did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality. Had it done so, this would be a different case. For where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. In such a case, due process would accord an opportunity to refute the charge before University officials. In the present case, however, there is no suggestion whatever that the respondent’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake. Similarly, there is no suggestion that the State, in declining to re-employ the respondent, imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. The State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities. Had it done so, this, again, would be a different case.”
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.