Chabal v. Reagan’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.2d 1216 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006), Melton v. City of Oklahoma City (1991)
16 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 3053 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 332 · 28 U.S.C. § 526 · 28 U.S.C. § 561
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Connick v. Myers · United States v. Nixon · Bishop v. Wood · Wisconsin v. Constantineau
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plaintiff must plead that the allegedly stigmatizing information was 'published' or otherwise disseminated by his government employer to the public.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.... 11 Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law--rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. James v. Quinlan“(1) is based on a charge against the individual that might seriously damage his standing and associations in the community ..., for example, by implying that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality, or (2) imposes on him a stigma or other disability that forecloses his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.