Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 498 U.S. 177 - In Re Michael Sindram

In Re Michael Sindram’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

311
cited by 311 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 15 district · 143 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 311 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1992), International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1991)

52 federal appellate · 15 district · 143 state decisions — followed in 15 states

14901991200020102020decided

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. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Lane v. Peterson

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 311 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our longstanding tradition of leaving our door open to all classes of litigants is a proud and decent one worth maintaining. See Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U.S. 1067 , 1070, 105 S.Ct. 1824, 1825, 85 L.Ed.2d 125 (1985) (STEVENS, J., concurring).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “appears to nothing more than an alternative for punishing [petitioner] for the frequency with which he has filed petitions for certiorari and petitions for rehearing”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.