Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Younger v. Harris
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to either accept or exclude the evidence for purposes of determining the motion. Isquith ex rel. Isquith v. Middle S. Utils., Inc. , 847 F.2d 186 , 196 n.3 (5th Cir. 1988) ; accord Gen. Retail Servs., Inc. v. Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC , 255 F. App'x 775 , 783 (5th Cir. 2007) ; see Walch v. Adjutant General's Dept. of Tex. , 533 F.3d 289 , 293-94 (5th Cir. 2008). However,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blakely v. Andrade“(1) the dispute must involve an 'ongoing state judicial proceeding;' (2) an important state interest in the subject matter of the proceeding must be implicated; and (3) the state proceeding must afford an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blakely v. Andrade“state proceedings, which include the appeal process, are adequate to redress any alleged constitutional deprivation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blakely v. Andrade
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.