Zakrzewski v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 1011 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably M. L. B. v. S. L. J. (1996), Mayard v. Hopwood (1997)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Santosky v. Kramer · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · Martinez v. California
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The theory of substantive due process is properly reserved for the truly egregious and extraordinary cases, and it proscribes certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any deprivation of Wise's visitation rights was so insubstantial in duration and effect it failed to rise to a federal constitutional level,” and then states”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brittain v. Hansen“of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”
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.