Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.2d 557 - Gary Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.

Gary Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.2d 557 · 1971

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
December 2009
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Wilson v. Thompson (1979), Shaw v. Garrison (1972)

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2401971198019902000decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Dombrowski v. Pfister · McAllister v. United States · Samuels v. J Mackell Fernandez

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

  1. ““an individual is not entitled to federal injunctive relief against a state prosecution which has been instituted by state officials in good faith unless irreparable injury to the state court defendant (as shown in Dombrowski v. Pfister, 1965, 380 U.S. 479 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 ) can be estab-. lished. On the other hand, should the state court defendant be able to estab-j lish that the state prosecution has been instituted in had faith and, fon, purposes of harassment ... irreparable injury need not be shown provided there is present a basis for federal jursdiction, e. g. Title 28, U.S.C., Sec. 1343 and Title 42, U.S.C., Sec. 1983 .” 445 F.2d 557, 559-560 (5th Cir. 1971). Emphasis in original.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . any violation which may have occurred was so slight that the State . . . did not have a legitimate interest in reprosecution after reversal of the prior conviction.”
    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.