Kaufman v. Kaye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “In so holding, we wrote that under principles known as comity a federal district court has not power to intervene in the internal procedures of the state courts. We observed that the federal courts cannot legislate and engraft new procedures upon existing state criminal practices. Such interference with the state criminal process in both pending and future bail proceedings, would violate principles of comity established in Younger .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Disability Rights N.Y. v. New York · Hernandez v. Carbone

2. “In Younger , the Supreme Court explained that, in our federal system, a federal court, ‘anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.’ Younger was a challenge to an ongoing criminal case, but the doctrine has been extended with equal force to federal civil litigation challenging certain other state proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hernandez v. Carbone

3. “control[ ] or prevent[ ] the occurrence of specific events that might take place in the court of future state [Article 17A proceedings.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Disability Rights N.Y. v. New York