Walter S. Farley, Jr. v. Walter S. Farley, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[E]ven if [prior E.D.Pa. district court decision] had decided the precise issue, its holding is not a precedent binding on other courts. The decision of a three-judge court is entitled to no more weight than any other district court decision. See IB J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.402[1] n. 29 at 62. Consequently, the [prior district court decision] is not necessarily binding on any other district court, id. at 61, and does not invariably have to be followed in the Eastern District. Id. at 58-59.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 582 F. Supp. 128 - Schlanger v. Four-Phase Systems, Inc. · 576 F. Supp. 1530 - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pan American World Airways

2. ““ ‘Constitutional insubstantiality’ for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as ‘essentially fictitious,’ Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. [31], at 33, 82 S.Ct. [549], at 551 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 512 ]; ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ibid.; ‘obviously frivolous,’ Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288 , 30 S.Ct. 326, 327 , 54 L.Ed. 482 (1910); and ‘obviously without merit,’ Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32 , 54 S.Ct. 3, 4-5 , 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933). The limiting words ‘wholly’ and ‘obviously’ have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect of prior decisions upon the substantiality of constitutional claims, those words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2281 . A claim is insubstantial only if ‘ “its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” ’ Ex parte Poresky, supra, at 32, 54 S.Ct. at 4 , quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, supra, 216 U.S., at 288 , 30 S.Ct. at 327 ; see also Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105-106 , 53 S.Ct. 549 , 550, 77 L.Ed. 1062 (1933); McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U.S. 70, 80 , 30 S.Ct. 27, 31 , 54 L.Ed. 95 (1909).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 397 F. Supp. 512 - Meyer v. Curran