Kolski v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis
544 F.2d 762 · 1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Wilson v. Thompson (1979), Rowe v. Griffin (1982)
13 federal appellate · 1 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 · Stone v. Powell · Steffel v. Thompson · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. · Samuels v. J Mackell Fernandez
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Also, while we today make no decision about the constitutionality of Alabama's judicial canons, we doubt that Canon 7(B)(2) patently or fragrantly violates the Constitution `in every clause, sentence, and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[T]he possible unconstitutionality of a statute on its face does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““First, petitioner has not shown that he will suffer irreparable injury by having to try this case in the Florida state courts. Certainly, the cost, anxiety, or inconvenience of defending a single criminal proceeding does not amount to the irreparable injury required by Younger. Younger, supra, 401 U.S. at 46 [ 91 S.Ct. at 751 ] * * *; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 1943, 319 U.S. 157, 164 [ 63 S.Ct. 877, 881 , 87 L.Ed. 1324 ] * * *. Petitioner has also not shown that the state officials responsible for the prosecution are guilty of ‘bad faith’ or ‘harassment’ of petitioner. Nor has petitioner shown any other ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify federal court interference [in] a state pending criminal trial in this case.””
1 later decision 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.