Culbreath v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
799 F.2d 1248 · 1986
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 1994 · most notably Lavado v. Keohane (1993), Young II v. Kann (1991)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 7 U.S.C. § 1981A
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Davis v. Scherer · Allison v. Block
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[wjhere neither the constitutional right nor the constitutional cause of action is expressly created by the terms of a regulation or statute, officials do not forfeit qualified immunity solely by failing to comply with the provisions of that statute or regulation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, at the time the challenged actions occurred, it was not clearly established that the Culbreaths were constitutionally entitled to any preliquidation process. Only after this court’s decision in Allison v. Block, 723 F.2d 631 (8th Cir.1983) , was the constitutional right to preliquidation notice of the right to apply for a loan deferral clearly established. Id. at 634 . Compare Allison v. Block 556 F.Supp. 400 , 405-06 (W.D.Mo.1982), aff’d, 723 F.2d 631 (8th Cir.1983) (notice required), with Neighbors v. Block, 564 F.Supp. 1075 , 1080 (E.D.Ark.1983) (no notice required). Even then, Allison was limited to the question of preliquidation deferral notice and did not address or recognize the existence of additional constitutionally mandated preliquidation procedures, such as notice of the right to appeal from the preliminary liquidation decision itself. See, e.g., Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 194 , 211 (D.N.D.1984); Gamradt v. Block, 581 F.Supp. 122 , 134 (D.Minn.1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hagemeier v. Block
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.