Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 770 F.2d 578 - Wilson v. Beebe

Wilson v. Beebe’s Empirical Analysis

770 F.2d 578 · 1985

Citation profile

266
cited by 266 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

155 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 266 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Zinermon v. Burch (1990), Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney (1990)

155 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions

166019851990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Estelle v. Gamble · 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 266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the state does provide a remedy which meets this standard, then the deprivation though under the color of state law, is not without due process of law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, the extent of injury inflicted, and whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Substantive due process claims are of two types. The first type includes claims asserting denial of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution or by federal statute other than procedural claims under “the Fourteenth Amendment simpliciter.” The other type of claim is directed at official acts which may not occur regardless of the procedural safeguards accompanying them. The test for substantive due process claims of this type is whether the conduct complained of “shocks the conscience” of the court.”
    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.