Nishan Paul and Irma Feder v. Dade County, Florida, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.2d 10 · 1969
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2006 · most notably Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District (1970), E. B. Elliott Adv. Co., Henry F. Hill, Intervenor-Appellant v. Metropolitan Dade County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida (1970)
30 federal appellate · 2 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 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · New York Indians v. United States · Zahn v. Transamerica Corp. · Hanna v. Home Insurance · Brown v. Chastain
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Presentation to the federal court of the same constitutional questions already passed upon by the state court is “a form of direct federal district court review of the state decisions,” even though no declaration of the invalidity of the state judgment was sought as in Rooker . . . [T]he district court is patently without jurisdiction to engage in such a review because that review would be tantamount to an attempt “to reverse or modify” a state judgment, which Rooker proscribes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Presentation to the federal court of the same constitutional questions already passed upon by the state court is a “form of direct federal district court review of state decisions” even though no declaration of the invalidity of the state judgment was sought as in Rooker . ... [T)he district court is patently without jurisdiction to engage in such a review because that review would be tantamount to an attempt “to reverse or modify” a state judgment which Rooker proscribes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. Ariyoshi“[a] federal district court is without jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims already litigated in state courts when, as here, there is already a final appealable judgment by a state court at the time the federal suit is instituted”
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.