McKithen v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.3d 89 · 2007
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009), Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP (2010)
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (Innocence Protection Act of 2004) · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wolff v. McDonnell
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] federal suit complains of injury from a state-court judgment, even if it appears to complain only of a third party’s actions, when the third party’s actions are produced by a state-court judgment and not simply ratified, acquiesced in, or left unpunished by it. Where a state-court judgment causes the challenged third-party action, any challenge to that third-party action is necessarily the kind of challenge to the state judgment that only the Supreme Court can hear.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'federal plaintiffs are not subject to the Rooker-Feldman bar unless they complain of an injury caused by a state judgment.’ ” McKithen VI, 481 F.3d at 97 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 , 87 (2d Cir.2005)). The Second Circuit in this case concluded that”
2 later decisions 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.