Stana v. School District’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 122 · 1985
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1994), Sample v. Diecks (1989)
49 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 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 · Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Parratt v. Taylor
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]roperty interests ... can also arise from written or unwritten state or local government policies or from `mutually explicit understandings' between a government employer and employee.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“patently, when the acts at issue were those of an official in a supervisory position, the governmental entity was in a position to provide some pre-deprivation process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is uncontested on this record that the School District and Allebrand, the official responsible for the eligibility list on which Stana’s name appeared, had an established policy for placement and rank on the list and for maintenance of names on that list for a specified period of time. It is also undisputed that Stana originally met the criteria for placement on the list. Allebrand testified at his deposition that the School District indicates to the teacher, “that if a person places on the list, their name will remain on that list for at least two years.” He further stated that to keep the list current, people who no longer demonstrate an active interest are removed after two years but interested persons remain on the list for four years. This is consistent with Stana’s testimony that she was informed by another school official that names remain on the eligibility list for four years. Stana’s name was removed from the list without notice and an opportunity to be heard before two years had passed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.