Errol Lynch v. Joseph S. Cannatella, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 1363 · 1987
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Jones v. City of Chicago (1988), Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v. Losavio (1988)
81 federal appellate · 2 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 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1223 (§ 233 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (§ 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hatever due process rights excludable aliens may be denied by virtue of their status, they are entitled under the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to be free of gross physical abuse at the hands of state or federal officials.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not limit the right of excludable aliens detained within United States territory to humane treatment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
3 later decisions 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.