Yagman v. Garcetti’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.3d 859 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Mathews v. Eldridge · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Allen v. Wright · 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must apply the three-part balancing test established in Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine 'whether a pre-deprivation hearing is required and what specific procedures must be employed at that hearing given the particularities of the deprivation.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's interest, including the burdens of additional procedural requirements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“With respect to the first Mathews factor, the private interest at stake is relatively modest. Any erroneous deprivation based on the City's prehearing deposit requirement is temporary, as the deposit is refunded after a successful challenge.”
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.