Dubinka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz) · In Re Audre, Inc.

2. “Although a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to a state court’s decision, the court does have jurisdiction over a general constitutional challenge that does not require review of a final state court decision in a particular case. [Feldman ] at 482-86, 103 S.Ct. at 1314-17 ; [Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir.1986) ]. ‘This distinction between a permissible general constitutional challenge and an impermissible appeal of a state court determination may be subtle, and difficult to make.’ McNair, 805 F.2d at 891 (citations omitted). In analyzing whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear a particular constitutional challenge, we must determine whether the constitutional claims are ‘inexplicably intertwined’ with the state court’s rulings in a particular plaintiffs state case. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 -84 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 1315 -16 n. 16 (stating that ‘[i]f the constitutional claims presented to a United States district court are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiffs application for admission to the state bar, then the district court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision’); see also McNair, 805 F.2d at 892 . Courts have generally concluded that claims are inextricably intertwined when the district court must scrutinize both the challenged rule and the state court’s application of that rule”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 114 F. Supp. 2d 603 - Tesmer v. Granholm

3. “Challenges to the constitutionality of state bar rules, therefore, do not necessarily require a United States District Court to review a final state court judgment in a judicial proceeding. Instead, the District Court may simply be asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a nonjudicial proceeding. If this is the case the District Court is not reviewing a state-court judicial decision. In this regard, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 does not act as a bar to the District Court’s consideration of the case and because the proceedings giving rise to the rule are nonjudicial the policies prohibiting United States District Court review of final state-court judgments are not implicated. United States District Courts, therefore, have subject-matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in nonjudicial proceedings, which do not require review of a final state-court judgment in a particular case. They do not have jurisdiction, however, over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State of Kan.