Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 446 F.3d 410 - The Delaware Nation v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

The Delaware Nation v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis

446 F.3d 410 · 2006

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
March 2021
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006), Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education (2009)

15 federal appellate · 3 district ·

290200620102020decided

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 County of Oneida New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State New York · Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries Inc Ct · Morse v. Lower Merion School District · United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad · Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd.

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

  1. “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, this Court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although [the plaintiffj now contends that it did not concede the argument ..., it does not, and cannot, argue that it raised the issue before the District Court. Therefore, the issue is waived.” (internal citation omitted)). Insofar as they attempted to introduce in their factual background portion of their briefing before the District Court a dispute about their motivations in refusing to hire Flora, the District Court properly rejected their efforts as raising matters outside the pleadings and therefore being inappropriate in a motion to dismiss. (App. at 5 n. 1 (”
    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.