Kellogg v. Watts Guerra’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Liteky et al 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trial court had not lost its jurisdiction because the appellate court was entertaining an application for writ of mandamus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ogeone v. Au“[P]etitions for extraordinary writs do not destroy the district court's jurisdiction in the underlying case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ogeone v. Au“[T]he filing of a mandamus petition didn't divest the district court of jurisdiction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ogeone v. Au
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.