Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 F.3d 163 - Carney v. Philippone

Carney v. Philippone’s Empirical Analysis

332 F.3d 163 · 2003

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
March 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Baldayaque v. United States (2003), Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber (2005)

17 federal appellate ·

200200320102020decided

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 Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp. · McCarthy v. Olin Corp. · Hachamovitch v. DeBuono · Buechel v. Bain · Allstate Insurance v. Mazzola

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

  1. “a strong interest in deciding the issue[s] certified rather than having the only precedent on point be that of the federal court, which may be mistaken”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a judgment in a prior proceeding bars a party and its privies from relitigating an issue if, but only if: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in order to give effect to the phrase ` and not thereafter ' in section 8 [of the Onondaga County Tax Act], the six-month notice requirement cannot lengthen the two- and three-year redemption periods.”
    1 later decision 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.