Martin v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.3d 360 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines (2008), Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko (2013)
7 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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. § 1291 · 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 · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Grayned v. City of Rockford
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Burford permits abstention when federal adjudication would “unduly intrude” upon “complex state administrative processes” because either: (1) “there are difficult questions of state law ... whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar”; or (2) federal review would disrupt “state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“equitable decision [which] balances the strong federal interest in having certain classes of cases, and certain federal rights, adjudicated in federal court, against the State’s interests in maintaining uniformity in the treatment of an essentially local problem, and retaining local control over difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he state law component of a vagueness challenge — whether limiting constructions apply to the language — is settled: the State’s highest court has expressly held that the statutory text is to be given its ordinary meaning. The remaining question — whether the statute’s ordinary meaning is unconstitutionally vague — is a matter of federal law. Thus, because state law is now “clear and certain,” Burford abstention is inappropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGee v. Cole
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.