Mora v. New York’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.3d 183 · 2008
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Presbyterian Church v. Talisman Energy, Inc. (2009), Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc. (2009)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Christensen v. Harris County · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
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.
“signatories'' in an informal, almost colloquial way. It is not the opinions of states that have merely signed a treaty that we should find persuasive; it is the opinions of states that have ratified the treaty. As the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, our Court relies on it as an authoritative guide to the customary international law of treaties, insofar as it reflects actual state practices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin“depositary” of the treaty, see, e.g., Vien na Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts. 76, 77, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 350-51 (defining and explaining the functions of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin
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.