Mitchell v. Fishbein’s Empirical Analysis
377 F.3d 157 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Biao Yang v. Gonzales (2007), Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012)
12 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Butz v. Economou · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · Forrester v. White
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine recognizes that the federal district courts may not review decisions by a state's courts, it does not preclude federal district court review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Functions that might be deemed integrally related to the judicial process when undertaken in the context of a particular case may be viewed as-administrative when they are undertaken outside that context, and “[administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not ... been regarded as judicial acts,” Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 228, 108 S.Ct. 538 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). For example, a judge has been held to have absolute immunity from a claim of conspiracy to empanel an all-white jury in a particular criminal trial, see White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276 , 279-80 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995 , 101 S.Ct. 533 , 66 L.Ed.2d 292 (1980), but to have no such immunity from a claim of racial discrimination in the preparation of general jury lists to affect all future trials, a job that was “ministerial,” see Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 339, 348, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1879). In the latter case, the judge had the responsibility of “preparing] annually a list of such inhabitants of the county ... ‘as he shall think well qualified to serve as jurors, being persons of sound judgment and free from legal exception,’ ” id. at 349 (Field, J., dissenting), a task that “might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge,” id. at 348 (majority opinion). The Committee’s job of formulating a list of attorneys deemed qualified to represent indigent defendants accused of crimes, and its addi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . It often is given to county commissioners, or supervisors, or assessors. In former times, the selection was made by the sheriff. In such cases, it surely is not a judicial act, in any such sense as is contended for here. It is merely a ministerial act, as much so as the act of a sheriff holding an execution, in determining upon what piece of property he will make a levy, or the act of a road-master in selecting laborers to work upon the roads. That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, [and] sheriffs []. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?”
1 later decision 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.