Coles’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParks (2010), State ex rel. Coles v. Granville (2007)
1 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellate review—the type of judicial action barred by Rooker-Feldman— consists of a review of the proceedings already conducted by the ‘lower’ tribunal to determine whether it reached its result in accordance with law. When, in contrast, the second court tries a matter anew and reaches a conclusion contrary to a judgment by the first court, without concerning itself with the bona fides of the prior judgment (which may or may not have been a lawful judgment under the evidence and argument presented to the first court), it is not conducting appellate review, regardless of whether compliance with the second judgment would make it impossible to comply with the first judgment. In this latter situation the conflict between the two judgments is to be resolved under preclusion doctrine, not Rooker-Feldman.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by `state-court losers' challenging `state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine originates from two Supreme Court decisions, which were rendered 60 years apart. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). In both cases the plaintiffs challenged the validity of state court decisions by filing suit in federal district court. In Rooker , the plaintiff asked the district court to render the state court judgment against him “null and void.” See Rooker, 263 U.S. at 414-15 , 44 S.Ct. 149 . In Feldman , the plaintiffs filed suit against the actual state court that had rejected the plaintiffs’ applications to practice law. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 478-79 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 . In both cases the Supreme Court dismissed the suits for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 , only the Supreme Court, and not the lower federal courts, enjoys appel late jurisdiction over state court decisions. See Rooker, 263 U.S. at 414-15 , 44 S.Ct. 149 ; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 478-79 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 .”
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.