Doe v. Karadzic’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. · Kadic v. Karadžić · County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assum[ption] that defendant could not satisfy even a fraction of the monetary judgments that could be entered against him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Karadzic
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.