Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 883 F.2d 551 - Polenz v. Parrott

Polenz v. Parrott’s Empirical Analysis

883 F.2d 551 · 1989

Citation profile

129
cited by 129 later decisions
4
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Doherty v. City of Chicago (1996), New Burnham Prairie Homes, Inc. v. Village of Burnham (1990)

57 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

9801989199020002010decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams

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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “in addition to alleging that the decision was arbitrary and irrational, 'the plaintiff must also show either a separate constitutional violation or the inadequacy of state law remedies.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[I]n cases where the plaintiff complains that he has been unreasonably deprived of a state-created property interest, without alleging a violation of some other substantive constitutional right or that the available state remedies are inadequate, the plaintiff has not stated a substantive due process claim.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[W]here a municipal ordinance provides substantive criteria which, if met, dictate the issuance of a permit, an applicant who has met those criteria might assert a legitimate claim of entitlement to the permit.”
    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.