Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 F.3d 1218 - Bennett v. Yoshina

Bennett v. Yoshina’s Empirical Analysis

140 F.3d 1218 · 1998

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Ned L. Siegel, Georgette Sosa Douglas v. Theresa Lepore, Charles E. Burton (2000), Rivera-Powell v. New York City Board of Elections (2006)

15 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

3501998200020102020decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Baker v. Carr · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.

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

  1. “[m]ere fraud or mistake will not render an election invalid.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine ... generally prevents this court from exercising appellate jurisdiction over state-court decisions. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 [ 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 ] (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 [ 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 ] (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that: a losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights. Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 [ 114 S.Ct. 2647 , 129 L.Ed.2d 775 ] (1994)).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if it is conducted in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.”
    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.