Cullen v. Fliegner’s Empirical Analysis
18 F.3d 96 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (2003), Diamond "D" Construction Corp. v. McGowan (2002)
15 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Zerbst · Younger v. Harris · Carnegie v. United States · Vandygriff v. Phillips
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.
“the party bringing the state action must have no reasonable expectation of obtaining a favorable outcome.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ordinarily a state proceeding provides an adequate forum for the vindication of federal constitutional rights, Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 [, 95 S.Ct. 1524, 1530-31 , 44 L.Ed.2d 15 ] (1975), and so due deference ought to be paid the principles of comity and federalism. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44 [ 91 S.Ct. at 750-51 ], Younger abstention applies to state judicial and administrative proceedings, so long as the state court has a means of reviewing constitutional claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]bstention would serve no purpose because a state cannot have a legitimate interest in discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights or, equally, in continuing actions otherwise brought in bad faith, thereby reducing the need for deference to state proceedings.”
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.