Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 F.3d 49 - Phifer v. City of New York

Phifer v. City of New York’s Empirical Analysis

289 F.3d 49 · 2002

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
March 2020
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam (2003), Nicholson v. Scoppetta (2003)

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

490200220102020decided

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 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · Sutton 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the Supreme Court’s use of “inextricably intertwined” means, at a minimum, that where a federal plaintiff had an opportunity to litigate a claim in a state proceeding (as either the plaintiff or defendant in that proceeding), subsequent litigation of the claim will be barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under the principles of preclusion.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f the precise claims raised in a state court proceeding are raised in the subsequent federal proceeding, Rooker-Feldman plainly will bar the action”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “while res judicata does not bar the plaintiffs section 1983 claims in the instant case as the family court does not have the power to award monetary damages, collateral estoppel can be applied to the plaintiffs section 1983 claims to determine whether they are barred under Rooker-Feldman.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.