Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
469 F.3d 1340 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Andrews v. Heaton (2007), Ford v. Pryor (2008)
6 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Cupp v. Naughten · Martin-Trigona v. Lavien · Tripati v. Beaman · Cotner v. Hopkins · United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is no apparent basis for extending [a similar advance review of pro se filings] restriction to include any subject matter and any party [because] Ms. Sieverding has not filed litigation against random persons or entities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andrews v. Heaton“[i]t is unreasonable for [a district court] to attempt to limit access to this court or any other court of appeals. We are capable of deciding if filing restrictions are appropriate in this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andrews v. Heaton
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.