Newell v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
981 F.2d 880 · 1992
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Fagan v. City of Vineland (1994), Vakilian v. Shaw (2003)
16 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Graham v. Connor · United States v. O'Brien · Rochin v. People of California · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Meachum v. Fano
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not doubt that the concept of substantive due process — that “durable oxymoron,” as Judge Posner has called it— continues to influence the thinking of the Supreme Court. Virtually every member of the Court has acknowledged that the Due Process Clause does have a substantive component, however difficult it may be to discern its contours. But nothing in the circumstances of the case before us suggests to us that there has been a violation of any substantive rights conferred by the Due Process Clause As a matter of current constitutional law, there are contexts in which it is widely believed that one’s substantive due process rights may be violated by conduct that “shocks the conscience,” [citations omitted] and offends “those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses.” [Citations omitted]. The procedure through which the plaintiff in this case was reclassified and assigned to another prison certainly does not shock our conscience, if that be thought relevant, nor does the procedure offend any canons of decency and fairness of which we are aware.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allege both a conspiracy and some class-based discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action.”
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.