In Re: Gary Lazar’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Pegasus Gold Corporation v. J (2005), ML Media Partners, LP v. Century/ML Cable Venture (In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.) (2002)
9 district · 1 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
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A logical relationship exists when the counterclaim arises from the same aggregate set of operative facts as the initial claim, in that the same operative facts serve as the basis of both claims or the aggregate core of facts upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights otherwise dormant in the defendant.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a state or an `arm of the state' files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding, the state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to the bankruptcy estate's claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the state's claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To require a pend[e]nt state action as a condition of abstention eliminates any confusion with 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (b), which provides district courts with the authority to remand civil actions properly removed to federal court, in situations where there is no parallel proceeding. Section 1334(c) abstention should be read in pari materia with section 1452(b) remand, so that the former applies only in those cases in which there is a related proceeding that either permits abstention in the interest of comity, section 1334(c)(1), or that, by legislative mandate, requires it, section 1334(c)(2).”
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.