Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 905 F.2d 858 - Caine v. Hardy

Caine v. Hardy’s Empirical Analysis

905 F.2d 858 · 1990

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
December 2013
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Ezekwo v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp. (1991), Easter House v. Felder (1990)

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

190199020002010decided

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. § 11101 (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · Hudson v. Palmer · Zinermon v. Burch

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

  1. “The Health Care Quality Improvement Act was not intended to replace existing procedural safeguards already in place at public hospitals nor provide a disciplined physician with a private cause of action. Rather, the Act is intended to establish certain criteria by which to determine whether procedural safeguards adopted for peer review of health professionals are sufficient to cloak the individuals acting pursuant to those procedures with the immunity provided by the Act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the conduct of the state employees here was not “unauthorized,” for the state has delegated to its employees “the power and authority to effect the very deprivation complained of here, ... and also delegated to them the concomitant duty to initiate the procedural safeguards set up by state law to guard against unlawful [termination].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is that the Parratt/Hudson doctrine is restricted to cases where it truly is impossible for the state to provide predeprivation procedural due process before a person unpredictably is deprived of his liberty or property through the unauthorized conduct of a state actor.”
    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.