Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 830 F.2d 1295 - Garraghty v. Jordan

Garraghty v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis

830 F.2d 1295 · 1987

Citation profile

128
cited by 128 later decisions
4
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. Russell (1992), Joseph Locurto v. Howard Safir Commissioner of the New York City (2001)

69 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

8201987199020002010decided

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 · Fuentes v. Shevin

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

  1. “an arbitrary or irrational exercise of discretion.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Due process principles did not require a neutral decision-maker, rather than Jordan, make the decision to suspend Garraghty. A deprivation proceeding need not be a full evidentiary hearing with witnesses and a neutral decision maker so long as the employee is given an opportunity to answer the charges.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an opportunity to present his side of the story.”
    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.