Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 547 F.3d 88 - Diaz v. Paterson

Diaz v. Paterson’s Empirical Analysis

547 F.3d 88 · 2008

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2023

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

160200820102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Fuentes v. Shevin · United States v. Salerno

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

  1. “a defendant who fails to demonstrate that a challenged law is unconstitutional as applied to him has 'necessarily fail[ed] to state a facial challenge, which requires [him] to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The notice states that a foreclosure action has been commenced against [the d]efendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. However, there is no indication that [the p]laintiff filed the complaint with the notice of pendency as required by CPLR § 6511(a).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n Doehr , a substantial risk of error was created by the nature of the underlying claim: an intentional tort that had no connection to the property and did not 'readily lend itself to accurate ex parte assessment of the merits.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.