Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 F.3d 109 - Dana Hedges

Dana Hedges’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
3
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

16 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably 331 F. Supp. 2d 311 - Pappas v. City of Lebanon (2004), 112 Cal. App. 4th 1031 - People v. Esayian (2003)

16 district · 4 state decisions

660200020102020decided

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 Ornelas v. United States · Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Cortez · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Elkins 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “protects two types of privacy interests: `One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The period of limitations for any claim asserted under section (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed' at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.”
    2 later decisions 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.