Charles v. Baesler’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 1349 · 1990
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Lawrence v. Texas (2003), LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority (1995)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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. § 1988
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann · Turner v. Safley
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Discriminatory administration of contractual public employment rights may implicate substantive due process as well as equal protection concerns, even if the liberty or property interest involved cannot be deemed independently fundamental. In such situations, substantive due process and equal protection doctrine overlap. This is because the substantive component of the Due Process Clause incorporates many, if not all, of the Constitution’s specific civil rights protections, including the right to equal protection of the law. See Gutzwiller v. Fenik, 860 F.2d 1317, 1328-29 (6th Cir.1988)....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Even if one assumes the existence of a property right, however, not every such right is entitled to the protection of substantive due process. While property interests are protected by procedural due process even though the interest is derived from state law rather than the Constitution, substantive due process rights are created only by the Constitution.”
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.