Janan v. Trammell’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 557 · 1986
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Kallstrom v. City of Columbus (1998), Nishiyama v. Dickson County (1987)
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Conley v. Gibson · Daniels v. Williams · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Martinez v. California · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp.
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he proper analysis is whether a special relationship exists between the criminal and the victim or between the victim and the state or whether there is some showing that the victim, as distinguished from the public at large, faces a special danger by the parolee’s release. In so holding, we follow other circuits that have held that absent a special relationship between the criminal and the victim or the victim and the state, no due process violation can occur.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56”
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.