Cleary v. Bolger’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
110 federal appellate · 37 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 340 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), Ker v. State of California (1963)
110 federal appellate · 37 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBolger v. Cleary (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Weeks v. United States · Elkins v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Mallory 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 340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If we were to sanction this intervention, we would expose every State criminal prosecution to insupportable disruption. Every question of procedural due process of law — with its far-flung and undefined range — would invite a flanking movement against the system of State courts by resort to the federal forum, with review if need be to this Court, to determine the issue. * * *”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Simon · Ripley v. Stidd““The withholding of injunctive relief against this state official does not deprive respondent of the opportunity for federal correction of any denial of federal constitutional rights in the state proceedings. To the extent that such rights have been violated, cf., e. g., Mapp v. Ohio [ 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 ], supra, he may raise the objection in the state courts and then seek review in this Court of an adverse determination by the New York Court of Appeals. To permit such claims to be litigated collaterally, as is sought here, would in effect frustrate the deep-seated federal policy against piecemeal review.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hess v. Orton · Ripley v. Stidd““A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.