Dillon v. Select Portfolio Servicing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “When a party makes an argument for the first 31After identifying Rivera's extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, and before assessing the § 3553(a) factors, the court stated: [Rivera's] record while serving his sentence suggests he has made great progress towards rehabilitation: (1) only one minor disciplinary infraction that occurred almost 10 years ago for being unsanitary and untidy; (2) has devoted a significant amount of time on educational and personal development programming (800 hours of English as a second language, 180−hour vocational program for custodial maintenance, drug abuse education, non−residential drug abuse program, and several other classes[)]; and (3) [Rivera] has worked at the UNICOR Optics factory at the FCI Butner complex and as an orderly, and received positive letters of recommendation from his supervisors. While we read the court's order to be presenting this rehabilitation record in support of the requisite § 3553(a) analysis, we pause to note that no statute prohibits rehabilitation, when combined with other extraordinary and compelling reasons, from serving as one of a court's bases for granting compassionate release. See 28 U.S.C. § 944 (t) (stating that "[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez · 458 F. App'x 4 - Moreno-Medina v. Toledo

2. “[e]xcept where application of the doctrine would produce ineguitable results, collateral estoppel operates to bar the relitigation of an issue when: (1) the party against whom collateral estoppel is sought is the same or in privity with the party in the previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) there is an 18 identity of issues.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunellen, et al. v. Power Test Realty, et al.

3. “Under federal law, a state court judgment receives the same preclusive effect as it would receive under the law of the state in which it was rendered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunellen, et al. v. Power Test Realty, et al.