Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 U.S. 521 - Skinner v. Switzer

Skinner v. Switzer’s Empirical Analysis

562 U.S. 521 · 2011

Citation profile

236
cited by 236 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 24 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 236 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Connick v. Thompson (2011), Skinner v. Switzer (2011)

35 federal appellate · 24 district · 6 state decisions

183020112020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Mathews v. Eldridge · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wolff v. McDonnell · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

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

  1. “' it is not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction that the 'same or a related question' was earlier aired between the parties in state court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “invit[e] district court review and rejection of [the Superior Court's] judgments.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rooker and Feldman exhibit the limited circumstances in which this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 , precludes a United States district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be empowered to adjudicate under a congressional grant of authority[.] In both cases, the losing party in state court filed suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.”
    1 later decision 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.