Raggio v. Matunis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied . . . Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., [ 392 U.S. 481 ], at 496 [ 88 S.Ct. 2224 at 2233 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1231] or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, . . . Allen v. State Board of Elections [ 393 U.S. 544 ] at 572 [ 89 S.Ct. 817 at 835 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 ] . . .. [I]t has been stressed that “we must . . . weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation”. Linkletter v. Walker [ 381 U.S. 618 ] at 629 [ 85 S.Ct. 1731 at 1738 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 ]. Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Cipriano v. City of Houma [ 395 U.S. 701 ] at 706 [ 89 S.Ct. 1897 at 1900 , 23 L.Ed.2d 647 ],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farkas v. Thornburgh

2. ““[I]f a decision could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in [Supreme Court] cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” [Citation omitted.] We are con vinced that both hardship and disruptive instability will result from retrospective application of Elrod. Although we do not have any statistics showing the number of employees who would be affected, we may safely assume that there are thousands of patronage appointments in Virginia and in this circuit which will be subject to attack if Elrod is given retroactive application.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 609 F. Supp. 1457 - Love v. Johns-Manville Canada, Inc.

3. “Every decision of the Supreme Court is foreshadowed to some extent by the fact that an issue is sufficiently unsettled to be litigated to the point of review before the Court. Obviously, this is not sufficient to deem the decision retroactive, or there would be no retroactivity doctrine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marino v. Bowers