Wallace v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
940 F.2d 243 · 1991
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably DeWalt v. Carter (2000), Colburn v. Trustees of Indiana University (1992)
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Hewitt v. Helms · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not an end in itself. Its constitutional purpose is to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“securely and durably yours ... as distinct from what you hold subject to so many conditions as to make your interest meager, transitory, or uncertain”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Does this [statutory] language create a "legitimate claim of entitlement"? If not, there is no constitutional liberty or property. [Citations omitted.] A "legitimate claim of entitlement" means more than an abstract desire. It is instead an entitlement contingent on facts, something you hold unless prescribed conditions of its defeasance can be established. [Citations omitted.] Something "securely and durably yours ... as distinct from what you hold subject to so many conditions as to make your interest meager, transitory, or uncertain". [Citations omitted.] How securely? Your entitlement must be "legally enforceable" [citations omitted]. Or, in the formulation of [ Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson (1989), 490 U.S. 454 , 109 S.Ct. 1904 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 ] there must be "`explicitly mandatory language,' in connection with the establishment of `specified substantive predicates' to limit discretion."”
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.