Rudnicki v. McCormack’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably Procup v. Strickland (1986), In re Green (1981)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Barr v. Matteo · Snowden v. Hughes · Pargoud v. United States · Gregoire v. Biddle · Kahm 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t has long been settled that a court of equity may enjoin the institution of repetitious and baseless litigation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e perpetually enjoin and restrain Daniel Tilli from continuing, instituting or prosecuting, without prior leave of court, this or any other legal proceeding in any court against any state or federal judge, officer or employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties as such judge, officer or employee. See J. John Gordon v. U.S. Department of Justice, 558 Fed.2d 618 (First Circuit) 1977. Accordingly, Clerks of any court shall not accept pleadings from Daniel Tilli without prior leave of court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“will continue to institute groundless and purely vexatious litigation both against these defendants and against other judges and public officials, the effect of which will be to cause further harassment of these officials, further expense to the governments which they represent, and further burden upon the offices of the clerks of the courts in which such proceedings are initiated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.