Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 F.3d 439 - Schlagler v. Phillips

Schlagler v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

166 F.3d 439 · 1999

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (2003), Diamond "D" Construction Corp. v. McGowan (2002)

9 federal appellate · 6 district ·

230199920002010decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · City of Houston v. Hill · Kugler v. Helfant · Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court

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

  1. “`we must review de novo the essentially legal determination of whether the requirements for abstention have been met.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under Younger[v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971),] and its progeny, a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction where three factors are present: (1) there is an ongoing state criminal proceeding; (2) the claim raises important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While [the Dupont Court] may have purported to declare [section 240.30] facially invalid, it is not entirely clear that it did so and in any event does not render invalid all prosecutions under the statute.”
    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.