Nelson v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 641 · 1999
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Kovacevich v. Kent State University (2000), Bruggeman ex rel. Bruggeman v. Blagojevich (2003)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
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 · Goldberg v. Kelly · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Defendant is an official of the state of Michigan which receives federal financial assistance.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A court should not dismiss a plaintiffs complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) unless, after construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all factual allegations as true, the court determines that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“effect on the state treasury. Id. at 737 (citing Edelman, 415 U.S. at 668 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 ); see also Thomson v. Harmony, 65 F.3d 1314, 1320-21 (6th Cir.1995) (finding that prospective relief of reinstatement to job, future support in research, and expungement of personnel record would cause only minimal and ancillary expense to state treasury); Lee v. Western Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation Ctr., 747 F.2d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir.1984). 13 As in Doe v. Wigginton, because the claims at issue here”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Miller
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.