Packett v. Stenberg’s Empirical Analysis
969 F.2d 721 · 1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (1997), State Ex Rel. Cavallaro v. Groose (1995)
5 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann · Elrod v. Burns · Siegert v. Gilley
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he legislature which creates a property interest may rescind it, whether the legislative body is federal or state and whether the interest is an entitlement to economic benefits, a statutory cause of action or civil service job protections. By the time appellant discharged appellees, the Arkansas Legislature had removed appellees' employment position from those entitled to civil service system protections. Accordingly, the property interest previously conferred ... had been extinguished.... [Because] the legislative process affords all the procedural due process required by the Constitution, the elimination of appellees' property interest in employment, although a deprivation, was not a deprivation without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the legislative alteration or elimination of a previously conferred property interest may be a deprivation, the legislative process itself provides citizens with the process they are due.”
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.