Will v. Hallock’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
433 federal appellate · 32 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 836 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter (2009), Moldowan v. City of Warren (2009)
433 federal appellate · 32 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
reviewedHallock v. Bonner (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 836 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e have meant what we have said; although the Court has been asked many times to expand the 'small class' of collaterally appealable orders, we have instead kept it narrow and selective in membership.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.”
7 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.