Robbins v. Chronister’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.3d 1238 · 2006
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield Of Utah (2006), United States v. Begay (2006)
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Staples v. United States · Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. · Crooks v. Harrelson · Sturges v. Crowninshield
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not enough to show that the result is contrary to what Congress (or, perhaps more accurately, some members of Congress) desired. In other words, we cannot reject an application of the plain meaning of the words in a statute on the ground that we are confident that Congress would have wanted a different result. Instead, we can apply the doctrine only when it would have been unthinkable for Congress to have intended the result commanded by the words of the statute — that is, when the result would be so bizarre that Congress could not have intended it[.] Accordingly, whether some members of Congress (or even a committee) expressed a view contrary to the statute’s language is beside the point. For the same reason, we cannot reject the plain meaning of statutory language just because Congress may not have anticipated the result compelled by that language in a particular case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The absurdity doctrine applies 'in only the most extreme of circumstances,' when an interpretation of a statute 'leads to results so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense,' which is a 'formidable hurdle' to the application of this doctrine. It is not enough to show that Congress intended a different result from the one produced by the plain language of the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the award of attorney’s fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment, the excess shall be paid by the defendant.”); Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir.2006) (”
2 later decisions 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.