AG Acceptance Corp. v. Veigel’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.3d 695 · 2009
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star L.P. (2009), Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. (2010)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on North Alamo Water Supply Corporation v. City of San Juan Texas · In the Matter Of: Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. · Truman v. Deason · Conley v. Board of Trustees of Grenada County Hospital · Coffel v. Stryker Corp.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exist only if the appellant establishes that the issue involves a pure question of law and a miscarriage of justice would result from the court's failure to consider it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under this Circuit’s general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are wáived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ ”). Plaintiffs do not argue that extraordinary circumstances are present here. 24 . See Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(U); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.14 (e)(1) (”
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.