Stern v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
564 U.S. 462 · 2011
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 432 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), 132 S. Ct. 1670 - Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/s (2012)
40 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 547 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 152 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on United States v. Olano · Butner v. United States · Puckett v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. Nixon
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 432 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Congress, in one isolated respect , exceeded”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Congress may not “withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 , 18 How. 272 , 15 L.Ed. 372 (1856). When a suit is made of “the stuff of the traditional actions at common law tried by the courts at Westminster in 1789,” ... and is brought within the bounds of federal jurisdiction, the responsibility for deciding that suit rests with Article III judges in Article III courts. The Constitution assigns that job — resolution of “the Mundane as well as the glamorous, matters of common law and statute as well as constitutional law, issues of fact as well as issues of law” — to the Judiciary-”
2 later decisions 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.