Plunkett v. Gill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 11-721. Orders and judgments of the Superior Court (a) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of appeals from— (1) all final orders and judgments of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; (2) interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia— (A) granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions; (b) ... [A] party aggrieved by an order or judgment specified in subsection (a) of this section, may appeal therefrom as of right to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. (d) When a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in making in a civil case ... a ruling or order not otherwise ap-pealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that the ruling or order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the ruling or order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation or case, he shall so state in writing in the ruling or order. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from that ruling or order, if application is made to it within ten days after the issuance or entry of the ruling or order. An application for an appeal under this subsection shall not stay proceedings in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia unless the judge of that court who made such ruling or order or t”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brandon v. Hines · In re J.A.P.

2. “if [interlocutory] appeals are to serve the purpose for which they were intended, they must be used only when the alternative would mean greater delay and expense than would be caused by the interlocutory review itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re JAP

3. “in no way limits [this court's] power to independently determine the suitability of § 11-721(d) to the litigation involved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re JAP