Hays v. Bryan Cave LLP’s Empirical Analysis
446 F.3d 712 · 2006
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila · Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Issues concerning the meaning of that [federal] law are quite likely to arise in such a malpractice action, but there is nothing unusual about a court having to decide issues that arise under the law of other jurisdictions; otherwise there would be no field called “conflict of laws” and no rule barring removal of a case from state to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. Mentioning a federal issue in a contract, or for that matter a complaint, does not determine the source of the claim itself.”
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.