Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 U.S. 443 - Kontrick v. Ryan

Kontrick v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

2,447
cited by 2,447 later decisions
57
cited 57 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
September 2025
most recently cited

908 federal appellate · 154 district · 169 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,447 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Bowles v. Russell (2007), Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006)

908 federal appellate · 154 district · 169 state decisions — followed in 20 states

1.3k0200420102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedIn re Kontrick (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Olano · Johnson v. Zerbst · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · United States v. Robinson · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger

Cited together with Eberhart v. United States · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · Bowles v. Russell · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Scarborough v. Principi

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 2,447 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “not for claim-processing rules, but only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court's adjudicatory authority.'”
    41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nly Congress may determine a lower federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'claim-processing rule, even if unalterable on a party's application,' does not reduce the adjudicatory domain of a tribunal and is ordinarily 'forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.'”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.