Griffith v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 1427 · 1990
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Doe v. Taylor Independent School District (1994), Garita Hotel Limited Partnership Etc v. Ponce Federal Bank Fsb (1992)
46 federal appellate · 8 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 673 (§ 473 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Estelle v. Gamble · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In order to state a cause of action ... under Section 1983, [Bonnie] must show that [she has] asserted a recognized `liberty or property' interest within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment ... and that [she was] intentionally or recklessly deprived of that interest, even temporarily, under color of state law."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Memorandum in Support of Appellants' Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Njothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them.”
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.