Roy v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 96 · 1973
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Bradley v. Pittsburgh Board of Education (1990), New Jersey Education Ass'n v. Burke (1978)
15 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Coogan had an adequate remedy for review of his suspension by petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. He chose not to resort to that remedy. ‘The Civil Rights Act was not designed to be used as a substitute for the right of appeal, or to collaterally attack a final judgment of the highest court of a state and relitigate the issues which it decided. ‘The final judgment of the Supreme Court is conclusive and Coogan is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating not only the issues which were actually involved in the disbarment proceeding, but also the issues which he might have presented.’” Roy v. Jones, 484 F.2d at p. 98 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear from a recitation of the facts of this case that the appellants have sought, through the vehicle of a section 1983 suit for injunctive relief, to have a lower federal court engage in what essentially constitutes relitigation of issues already decided by Pennsylvania’s highest court. Having failed to pursue the only available course for federal review of the state court’s determination — a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States — the appellants are now barred by the principles of res judicata from obtaining such review in the lower federal courts.” 484 F.2d p. 98.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the case is filed in federal court before a state court decision, a Pull- mcm-type abstention comes into being, the federal court staying its hand until the state court acts. If, after the state proceedings terminate, the plaintiff returns, the federal court must make a factual determination. It must decide whether the federal questions were presented to the state court. If they were, and were not reserved, then, on the theory of res judicata, the court may properly dismiss the federal action. It is this second stage which gives the label “England-type” to this category of abstention. ...”
1 later decision 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.