Wolfenbarger v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
774 F.2d 358 · 1985
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Zinermon v. Burch (1990), Meade v. Grubbs (1988)
23 federal appellate · 4 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 · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape · Hudson v. Palmer · Bishop v. Wood
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The requirements of the due process clauses are directed specifically to the federal and state governments. They require the promulgation of laws and regulations providing for regular procedures which the government must follow before it may deprive an individual of life, liberty or property. The execution of those laws and regulations also must conform to due process; otherwise the due process clause, with its guarantees of regular and predictable procedures, becomes a cipher. It is beyond cavil that due process requires more than the mere promulgation of laws and regulations which, if followed, would preserve the most fundamental of rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The underlying rationale of Parratt is that when deprivations of property are effected through random and unauthorized conduct of a state employee, predeprivation procedures are simply `impracticable' since the state cannot know when such deprivations will occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zinermon v. Burch“that the holder of stolen property has some protected interest because the state has provided for a judicial determination of ownership or possession prior to release of seized property.”
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.