Matthiessen v. Board of Education’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.2d 404 · 1988
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2019
9 federal appellate · 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Parratt v. Taylor · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Waller v. Georgia · Posey v. Skyline Corp.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Random and unauthorized" has been interpreted both narrowly and broadly. "Read narrowly it merely identifies the situation where a pre-deprivation remedy is infeasible because the officials authorized to grant such a hearing are unaware of the deprivation before it occurs." [ Tavarez , 826 F.2d] at 677. This may be because "the person committing the unconstitutional act may be employed at such a low level of state or local government that the official authorized to grant a pre-deprivation hearing would be unaware of the person's actions." Wilson v. Civil Town of Clayton , 839 F.2d 375 , 380 (7th Cir.1988). "Read more broadly, ... Parratt places beyond the reach of section 1983 any loss that 'is not a result of some established state procedure,' 451 U.S. at 541 , 101 S.Ct. 1908 , ... even if the loss might have been averted by a predeprivation hearing." Tavarez , 826 F.2d at 677 . In such a case the state cannot predict when a loss will occur. Wilson , 839 F.2d at 380 . Under the narrow reading the Board's action is not random and unauthorized. The Board is the body that is authorized to grant hearings, and thus it cannot be unaware that a hearing was not provided. Likewise under the broad reading the Board's action was not random and unauthorized. It is true that the Board's alleged action was not pursuant to the School Code, but in contravention of it, and thus would seem not to be pursuant to established state procedure. However, the single act of a sufficiently high-ranki”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Read narrowly it merely identifies the situation where a pre-deprivation remedy is infeasible because the officials authorized to grant such a hearing are unaware of the deprivation before it occurs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“place[ ] beyond the reach of section 1983 any loss that 'is not a result of some established state procedure' ... [because] the state cannot predict when a loss will occur.”
2 later decisions 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.