172 F3d 40 Michael J. Graveley v. City of Philadelphia’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Jerry Jamgotchian v. Gregory Ferraro (2024), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock (2006)
6 district ·
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 University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc. · Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners · Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. · Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Fisher
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“independently assess the adequacy of the state’s administrative forum. “The threshold inquiry ... is whether the state administrative proceeding was conducted with sufficient safeguards to be equated with a state court judgment. This requires careful review of the administrative record to ensure that, at a minimum, it meets the state’s own criteria necessary to require a court of that state to give preclusive effect to the state agency’s decisions ... [Although a federal court should ordinarily give preclusive effect when the state court would do so, there may be occasions where a state court would give preclusive effect to an administrative decision that failed to meet the minimum criteria set down [for federal courts] in [United States v. J Utah Construction [& Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966) ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he failure to seek judicial review of an administrative order precludes collateral attack of the order in a separate complaint. If no timely appeal is taken, the decision of the board is “conclusively presumed to be just, reasonable, and lawful.”.... This principle applies even to alleged constitutional errors that might have been corrected on proper application to the court which has jurisdiction to the appeal.”
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.