Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 838 F.2d 207 - Cornelius v. LaCroix

Cornelius v. LaCroix’s Empirical Analysis

838 F.2d 207 · 1988

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Kyle v. Morton High School (1998), Doe Nelson Ma v. Milwaukee County (1990)

18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1901988199020002010decided

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 · Smith v. Allwright · Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. · Reed Rbk v. Village of Shorewood · Geneva Towers Tenants Organization v. Federated Mortgage Investors

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

  1. “This circuit has on occasion been guided by Judge Hufstedler’s definition of “legitimate claim of entitlement.” See Geneva Towers Tenants Organization v. Federated Mortgage Investors, 504 F.2d 483, 495-96 (9th Cir.1974) (Hufstedler, J., dissenting) (“An entitlement is a legally enforceable interest in receiving a govemmentally conferred benefit, the initial receipt or termination of which is conditioned upon the existence of a controvertible and controverted fact.”) As reformulated by this court, the rule states that a “legitimate claim of entitlement is created only when the statutes or regulations in question establish a framework of factual conditions delimiting entitlement which are capable of being explored at a due process hearing.” Eidson v. Pierce, 745 F.2d 453 , 459-60 (7th Cir.1984). More plainly, it means “an entitlement that stands or falls on the application of rules to facts.” Scott v. Village of Kewaskum, 786 F.2d 338, 339-40 (7th Cir. 1986).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[P]roperty is what is securely and durably yours under state ... law as distinct from what you hold subject to so many conditions as to make your interest meager, transitory, or uncertain.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “People have a legitimate claim of entitlement to keep that which presently securely belongs to them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.