Eddie Willie Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2024
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 Foman v. Davis · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Singleton v. Wulff · Mistretta v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although reluctant to do so, we now turn to that question because the dissent has addressed a different one, and it cannot be correct that the [Prison Litigation Reform ActJ’s “immediate termination” provision may constitutionally be applied to the Taylor judgment. The judgment itself leaves no doubt that it left nothing more for the district court to do. Its terms could not be clearer: “All relief sought by plaintiff members of the class heretofore designated to which they are entitled is granted by this Judgment and [ ] the class, collectively and individually, is entitled to no other relief under this action.” Period. The court did not retain jurisdiction, as it could have done. Nor does the judgment require Arizona to report on compliance, request permission to make changes, or return to court for any purpose, as it also could have done. Unlike cases where a consent decree does put an injunctive scheme in place and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it, here the judgment explicitly granted all the relief to which Taylor was entitled. That relief does not include continuing jurisdiction. Indeed, so far as the record disclosed, the rules were implemented and the credits were restored; the judgment, in short, was executed. The case is over.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We disagree with the dissent’s view that the district court had “continuing supervisory jurisdiction” or that Arizona availed itself of the court’s “continuing supervisory jurisdiction” on several occasions. See Dissent at 6563-64 & n. 7. The court did not have continuing supervisory jurisdiction because the October 19, 1973 judgment did not state that it was retaining jurisdiction. See Kokkonen [, 511 U.S. at 381-82 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 .] Nor did Arizona invoke the court’s continuing supervisory jurisdiction in November 1979 or January 1994, but instead filed a routine motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 60(b). That Arizona chose to ask the court’s blessing on revisions to the rules by moving pursuant to Rule 60(b) to modify the judgment, and was successful, is immaterial to the point that it was a final judgment because changing the rules did not require court approval.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We disagree with the dissent’s view that the district court had “continuing supervisory jurisdiction” or that Arizona availed itself of the court’s “continuing supervisory jurisdiction” on several occasions. See Dissent at 6563-64 & n. 7. The court did not have continuing supervisory jurisdiction because the October 19, 1973 judgment did not state that it was retaining jurisdiction. See Kokko-nen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).”
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.