Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 F.3d 590 - Minot v. Eckardt-Minot

Minot v. Eckardt-Minot’s Empirical Analysis

13 F.3d 590 · 1994

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2018
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co (1996), Snapper, Inc. v. Redan (1999)

27 federal appellate · 4 district ·

290199420002010decided

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. § 1447

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux

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

  1. “A state court should lead the way in developing the law [for something amounting to a 'tort of custodial interference'], balancing the delicate issues involved here.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “since the District Court invoked abstention doctrines ... to justify its remand, section 1447(d) does not bar appellate review”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “conclusively determine [ ] which forum will decide the merits of [this] dispute.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.