Reich v. Beharry’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 239 · 1989
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University (2000), Unger v. National Residents Matching Program (1991)
34 federal appellate · 19 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 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 · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Parratt v. Taylor · Goldberg v. Kelly
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n this circuit at least, not all property interests worthy of procedural due process protection are protected by the concept of substantive due process.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Every breach of contract by someone acting under color of state law [does not] constitute[ ] a deprivation of property for procedural due process purposes.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o determine whether predeprivation process was required, we must apply the familiar tripartite test set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Under that test, we must weigh the importance of the interest of which the plaintiff is being deprived, the extent, if any, to which the particular procedure contended for will reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the burden that would be imposed upon the government if that pre-deprivation process were required.”
4 later decisions 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.