Benavidez v. Eu’s Empirical Analysis
34 F.3d 825 · 1994
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Green v. City of Tucson (2001), Spargo v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (2003)
33 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n
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.
“reflects a court's prudential decision not to exercise [equity] jurisdiction which it in fact possesses.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All three elements of Younger must be present in order for abstention to be appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A court has discretion to treat the pleading of an intervenor as a separate action in- order that it. might adjudicate the claims raised by the intervenor. This discretionary procedure is properly utilized in a case in which it appears that the intervenor has a separate and independent basis for jurisdiction and in which failure to adjudicate the claim will result only in unnecessary delay. By allowing the suit to continue with respect to the intervening party, the court can avoid the senseless delay and expense of a new suit, which at long last will merely bring the parties to the point where they now are.”
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.