Taylor v. Westly’s Empirical Analysis
525 F.3d 1288 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Jones v. Flowers · Richard S. v. Department of Developmental Services of the State of California · Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On its face, the new procedure complies with the due process standard established by the Supreme Court in Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), and Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 , 126 S.Ct. 1708 , 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006). Under the new law, the Controller is required to provide pre-escheat “ ‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections,’ ” Flowers, 547 U.S. at 226 , 126 S.Ct. 1708 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 ). Thus, the plaintiffs’ challenge, to the extent that it is a facial challenge against the new law, fails.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.