McCune v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 1152 · 1975
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. (1986), Winters v. Lavine (1978)
23 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Sosna v. Iowa · Withrow v. Larkin · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. · Patterson v. United States
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“issues which rise to the dignity of constitutional questions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““McCune’s complaint, it will be remembered, alleged that the disciplinary-board hearing his case was biased, and therefore constitutionally defective as a matter of procedural due process. Since Younger presupposed the existence of a competent state forum, that doctrine is no bar to an action seeking to enjoin a proceeding claimed to be constitutionally defective. [¶]... ] If [the court] finds no merit to the claims of bias, it may not proceed to determine the challenge to the grooming regulation unless it finds both Res judicata and Younger inapplicable. If[, however,] there is merit to the bias argument, then Younger will be no bar to deciding the validity of the regulation .... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the creation of special rules whereby in certain circumstances state court judgments are accorded perhaps . . . a lesser effect by a federal court in a Civil Rights Act case than they would be given by the state courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Winters v. Lavine
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.