Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 585 F.2d 692 - Pratt v. Kelly

Pratt v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

585 F.2d 692 · 1978

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2021

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

80197819801990200020102020decided

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 Rodriguez v. New York · James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · Paul v. United States · Stewart v. Sadrakula

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

  1. “In order to provide for uniform Federal jurisdiction over ... Shenandoah National Park, the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, approved April 1, 1940, fixing and defining the respective jurisdiction and powers of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States and ceding to the United States exclusive police jurisdiction overall lands ... within the park are hereby accepted and such exclusive jurisdiction is assumed by the United States over such lands.... The courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the United States of all civil causes of action arising on said lands to the same extent as if the cause of action had arisen in the county or city in which the land lies outside of the park area. Id. at 101-02.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The head or other authorized officer of any department ... of the Government ... may indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing, a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be ac- . quired as aforesaid, .it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.”
    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.