565 F. Supp. 2d 328 - Rodriguez v. Vila’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, interests of comity and the respect for state processes demand that federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Middlesex Co. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 , 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). Although initially applied to state criminal actions, the abstention doctrine has been extended to other proceedings that implicate important state interests, including the state-level, quasi-judicial, administrative proceeding at issue here. See Maymó-Meléndez v. Alvarez-Ramírez, 364 F.3d 27 , 31 n. 3 (1st Cir.2004) (enumerating the various applications of the Younger doctrine). Generally, insofar as the state proceedings evince “no showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate, the federal courts should abstain.” Middlesex Co. Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 435 , 102 S.Ct. 2515 . Extraordinary circumstances include those situations in which “core constitutional values are threatened during an ongoing state proceeding and there is a showing of irreparable harm that is both great and immediate.” Maymó-Meléndez, 364 F.3d at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted). Among those extraordinary circumstances are cases in which extreme bias completely renders a state adjudicator incompetent and inflicts irreparable harm upon the petit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 818 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund

2. “(a) When by provision of a law, rule, regulation or of this chapter, an agency must formally adjudicate a controversy; the proceedings shall be governed by this subchapter. Voluntary procedures for dispute resolution established by law or regulation shall not be included. The following rights shall be safeguarded in any formal adjudicatory procedure before an agency: (A) The right to timely notice of the charges or complaints or claims against one of the parties. (B) The right to introduce evidence. (C) The right to an impartial adjudication. (D) The right to have the decision based on the record of the case. (Emphasis ours). 10”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 818 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund

3. “It is hereby established that the public policy of the Commonwealth is to encourage the informal solution of administrative solution of administrative issues so that formal solution of the matters submitted to the agency will be unnecessary. The agencies shall establish the rules and procedures that will allow the informal solution of the matters submitted for their consideration without impairing the rights guaranteed by this chapter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 818 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund