Stephany v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.2d 497 · 1987
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Wb Ej Ej v. Matula, W.B. v. Matula (1995)
9 federal appellate · 8 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 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 · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Goldberg v. Kelly
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.
“It is well established that the requirements of procedural due process are triggered only when a protected interest is at stake.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. W.B., Parent of the Minor, E.J., on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Son, E.J. v. Joan Matula Mary Angela Engelhardt Judy Beach Catherine Brennan Patricia Cericola Dr. Gary Danielson Ann Pearce Kathleen Mahony Carol Burns Florence Noctor Dr. Jeffrey Osowski New Jersey State Board of Education Warren County Department of Education Mary Lou Varley Mansfield Board of Education State of New Jersey Department of Education Division of Special Education Employees of the Mansfield Township Board of Education · Wb Ej Ej v. Matula“Instead of focusing solely on the substantive predicates, the [Supreme] Court looked to both the state’s use of “language of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain procedures ‘shall,’ ‘will,’ or ‘must’ be employed,” and the provision “that administrative segregation will not occur absent specified substantive predicates,” as the basis for its conclusion that the regulations sufficiently constrained official discretion to create a liberty interest. [Hewitt, 459 U.S.] at 471-72, 103 S. Ct. at 871[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must show that particularized standards or criteria guide the [government's] decisionmakers”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Specter
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.