Stephens v. Tielsch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 6 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. .a rule requiring abstention would seriously undermine the remedy afforded by the civil rights acts. Since most states have both some form of due process clause and some form of equal protection clause, abstention would be necessary, or at least within the power of the district judge, in nearly every civil rights action. Consequently, litigants’ access to a federal forum would be significantly delayed. That could endanger the very effectiveness of the civil rights jurisdiction.” 502 F.2d at 1362 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pue v. Sillas · Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, Illinois

2. “a substantial and immediate possibility of obviating [the] federal claim by a decision on state law grounds.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Donohoe Construction Co. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission · 398 F. Supp. 21 - DONOHOE C. CO., INC. v. Maryland-National CP & P. Com'n

3. ““there were a number of disputed state law issues in the case which were not by any means identical to the Garfinkles’ federal constitutional challenge — for example, whether the plaintiff had in fact defaulted on his mortgage, the extent of foreclosure notice and hearing required under local law, and so on.” Stephens v. Tielsch, 502 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9 Cir. 1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lawson v. Smith