Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 787 F.2d 414 - Hrbek v. Farrier

Hrbek v. Farrier’s Empirical Analysis

787 F.2d 414 · 1986

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Washlefske v. Winston (2000), 92 Wash. App. 165 - In Re the Personal Restraint of Metcalf (1998)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

1701986199020002010decided

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 · Daniels v. Williams · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Desist v. United States · Maurice Sigler v. Vincent R. Lowrie

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural protection of property is a safeguard of the security of interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.... Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a resident performs services for the state at an institution, the director in control of such institution may, when the director deems such course practicable, pay such resident such wage as it deems proper in view of the circumstances, and in view of the cost attending the maintenance of such resident. In no case shall such wage exceed the amount paid to free labor for a like service or its equivalent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] state legislature may grant a favor to a convicted criminal, but it may also attach such conditions to the granting of the favor as it deems proper. This is exactly what the Iowa Legislature has chosen to do ... and we infer from that express statutory language that the state did not intend to confer property rights on those wages in the constitutional sense.”
    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.