Brown v. Frey’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.2d 159 · 1989
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2010 · most notably Sandin v. Conner (1995), Branch v. Tunnell (1994)
59 federal appellate · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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.
“with sufficient precision to put defendants on notice of the nature of the claim and enable them to prepare a response and, where appropriate, a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" Hewitt does not hold that if a state employs explicit and mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates, the entire state statute will be elevated to the level of federal constitutional law, the violation of which would constitute a violation of clearly established federal law. Instead, Hewitt stated only that the mandatory language raises a protected liberty interest. Because such an interest is raised, the court's inquiry is not whether the statute and therefore the Constitution is violated but whether the process afforded plaintiff `satisfied the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) their conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff-prisoner that was clearly established prior to the time of the alleged acts of the prison officials; (2) they knew or should have known of the clearly established right at the time of the violation; and (3) they knew or should have known that their conduct violated that right.”
3 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.