Fire Sprinklers Inc v. Victoria L Bradshaw Lloyd W Aubry Jr Daniel Dellarocca Roger Miller Rosa Frazier G & G Fire Sprinklers Inc’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.3d 941 · 2000
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2004
most recently cited
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Flast v. Cohen · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specifically held that G & G did not have a right to payment of the disputed funds pending the outcome of whatever kind of hearing would be afforded,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the California statutory scheme afforded no hearing at all when state officials directed that payments be withheld.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“specifically directed by State officials ... [and] the withholding party has no discretion.”
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.