Williams v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 1275 · 1995
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Jaghory v. New York State Department of Education (1997), Susan Desiderio v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e will not require . . . a futile gesture as a prerequisite for adjudication in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]hree basic conditions must be present to trigger Pullman abstention: “First, the state statute must be unclear or the issue of state law uncertain; second, resolution of the federal issue must depend upon the interpretation given to the ambiguous state provision; and third, the state law must be susceptible of an interpretation that would avoid or modify the federal constitutional issue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kachalsky v. Cacace“an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified only in the exceptional circum stances where the order to the parties to repair to the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.