Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 405 U.S. 1201 - Graves v. Barnes

Graves v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
56
cited 56 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (56 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably White v. Regester (1973), NEW MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. ORRIN W. FOX CO. Et Al. (1978)

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

55019721980199020002010decided

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 Whitcomb v. Chavis · Katchen v. Landy · Burns v. Richardson · Fortson v. Dorsey

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

  1. “reasonable probability that four members of the Court will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As a threshold consideration, Justices of this Court have consistently required there be a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction. See Mahan v. Howell, 404 U.S. 1201 , 1202, 92 S.Ct. 1, 2, 30 L.Ed.2d 5 (1971); Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 80 S.Ct. 33, 4 L.Ed. 10 2d 34 (1959). Of equal importance in cases presented on direct appeal where we lack the discretionary power to refuse to decide the merits is the related question whether five Justices are likely to conclude that the case was erroneously decided below. Justices have also weighed heavily the fact that the lower court refused to stay its order pending appeal, indicating that it was not sufficiently persuaded of the existence of potentially irreparable harm as a result of enforcement of its judgment in the interim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Stays pending appeal to this Court are granted only in extraordinary circumstances. A lower court judgment, entered by a tribunal that was closer to the facts than the single Justice, is entitled to a presumption of validity.”
    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.