Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 F.3d 702 - Doe v. Sundquist

Doe v. Sundquist’s Empirical Analysis

106 F.3d 702 · 1997

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. (1998), Arthur Cutshall v. Don Sundquist, Govenor of the State of Tennessee (1999)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

1101997200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Relies on Roe v. Wade · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · United States v. Lopez

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

  1. “The sort of judicial restraint that is normally warranted on interlocutory appeals does not prevent us from reaching clearly defined issues in the interest of judicial economy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the legal issues have been briefed and the factual record does not need expansion”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1)(A) All adoption records ... shall be made available to the following eligible persons: (i)[a]n adopted person ... who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older ...; (ii)[t]he legal representative of [such] a person ...; (B) Information ... shall be released ... only to the parents, siblings, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors, of the adopted person ..., and only with the express written consent ... [of] the adopted person....”
    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.