Kamleshwar Upadhya v. Donald N. Langenberg’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 661 · 1987
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Archie v. City of Racine (1988), Wolf v. City of Fitchburg (1989)
30 federal appellate ·
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 · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Perry v. Sindermann · Bishop v. Wood · Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] misunderstanding of one's entitlements, even if reasonable, does not enlarge those entitlements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] professor serving on a series of annual appointments, without an entitlement to renewal founded on state law, has no property interest in his position.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Omosegbon v. Wells“Upadhya's claim is based on his understanding of what was said to him, rather than on the words the University used or a reading of its Statutes.”
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.