Nelson v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 497 · 1995
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Garry v. Geils (1996), Nelson v. Miller (2009)
40 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Heck v. Humphrey · Kentucky v. Graham · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The principle of Younger is that a party to a state proceeding affecting important governmental interests must resolve the dispute in the state's preferred tribunal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`imperative not only so that the parties know whose interests are at issue but also so that representative plaintiffs with live claims may be substituted for those whose claims have become moot'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs avoid this [Rooker-Feldman] rule ... because they challenge the. alteration of their passes independently of the court's approval of that alteration.” Id. at 503 (citing GASH). 8 .Some practical aspects of the distinction between the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judi-cata are worth recalling. While Rooker-Feldman is entirely federal and requires no reference to principles of state law, under res judicata we look to the law of the state in which the prior judgment was entered to determine whether that state”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garry v. Geils
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.