Colon v. Schneider’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 660 · 1990
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Sandin v. Conner (1995), Ledford v. Sullivan (1997)
52 federal appellate · 3 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his court has repeatedly stated that arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e have repeatedly rejected the notion that any and all state prison rules and regulations containing [mandatory] language automatically create 'legitimate claims of entitlement' triggering the procedural protections of the due process clause.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, the Clause incorporates many of the specific protections defined in the Bill of Rights. A plaintiff may bring suit under § 1983 for state officials’ violation of his rights to, e.g., freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Second, the Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government action regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.... [Third,] [a] § 1983 action may be brought for a violation of procedural due process, but ... [i]n procedural due process claims, the deprivation by state action of a constitutionally protected interest in ‘life, liberty, or property’ is not in itself unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the deprivation of such an interest without due process of law.””
2 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.