Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 563 F.2d 873 - Jordan v. Trainor

Jordan v. Trainor’s Empirical Analysis

563 F.2d 873 · 1977

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
July 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

14019771980199020002010decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Barrett v. United States · Williams v. Democratic Party · American Theatre Corporation v. United States

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

  1. “mere explanatory notice to applicants advising them that there is a state administrative procedure available if they desire to have the state determine whether or not they may be eligible for past benefits. A simple returnable notice of appeal form could also be provided.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'given no more . . . than what they would have gathered by sitting in the courtroom.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The form of notice we envisage would not create a 'liability' against the state. Whether a liability might result would be a matter for state determination, not the federal court. No federal judgment against the state would be created. Such a notice could not be labeled equitable restitution or be considered an award of damages against the state. The defendant makes no issue out of any incidental administrative expense connected with the preparation or mailing of the notice. It has suggested in the record that the notice could be included in the regular monthly mailing. The necessary information comes from a computer. There is no indication that the administrative expense would be substantial.”
    2 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.