McRedmond v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 757 · 1976
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Ramos v. Lamm (1980), Winters v. Lavine (1978)
30 federal appellate · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Dandridge v. Williams · Procunier v. Martinez
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhat the state statute be unclear or the issue of state law be uncertain, that resolution of the federal issue depend upon the interpretation to be given to the state law, and that the state law be susceptible of an interpretation that would avoid or modify the federal constitutional issue. ... [W]here a state statute is unambiguous the court must perform its adjudicative duty and has no right to abstain merely because a state court decision might render a federal adjudication unnecessary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“three essential conditions for invocation of the doctrine of abstention (: (1)) that the state statute be unclear or the issue of state law be uncertain, ((2)) that resolution of the federal issue depend upon the interpretation to be given to the state law, and ((3)) that the state law be susceptible of an interpretation that would avoid or modify the federal constitutional issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““resolution of a federal constitutional issue is controlled by the interpretation of an unclear or complex state statute that is susceptible to a construction which would avoid or modify the necessity of a constitutional adjudication.” McRedmond v. Wilson, supra, 533 F.2d at 760 .”
3 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.