Schuster v. Mims’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.3d 237 · 1997
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Corning Inc. (2005), Txnb Internal Case v. Gpr Llc
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Catlin v. United States · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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.
“Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [t]he claim has no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, other than § 1334(b); (2) the claim is a non-core proceeding, i.e., it is related or in a case under title 11; (3) an action has been commenced in state court; and (4) the action could be adjudicated timely in state court.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny decision to abstain or not to abstain made under this subsection ( other than a decision not to abstain in a proceeding described in subsection (c)(2) ) is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title.”
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.