Patterson v. Portch’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 1399 · 1988
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc. (1992), Swank v. Smart (1990)
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 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 · Anderson v. Creighton · Goldberg v. Kelly · Carey v. Piphus
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“separate consideration would involve sheer duplication of effort by the parties and [the] court,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an order not itself appealable, but closely connected to an order that is appealable, may be reviewed as a pendant to the latter order”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All [plaintiff professor] lost as a result of the constitutional violation was his salary between the day that [the chancellor] terminated him and the day on which his dismissal would have taken effect had [the chancellor] followed the prescribed procedures. That loss ... plus the monetary equivalent of any “mental and emotional distress ... actually caused by the denial of due process itself,” Carey v. Piphus, supra, 435 U.S. at 263 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 ... minus so much of the loss as might have been averted by reason able efforts to mitigate damages, constitutes the damages that [plaintiff] would be allowed to recover from [the chancellor].”
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.