Pue v. Sillas’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 74 · 1980
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co. (1980), Fresh International Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1986)
45 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. L. H. v. Jamieson · L. H., M. D., E. M., R. C., and T. D., by Their Attorneys and Next Friends John G. Balentine and Terry D. Oehler, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. William S. Jamieson, Jr., Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, and Bruce E. Babbitt, Governor of the State of Arizona, Individually and in Their Official Capacities“The Court reaffirmed the distinction . . . between state constitutional provisions which are integrally related to the challenged state statutory scheme and those which simply mirror the federal constitution in Examining Board of Eng'rs Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, [ 426 U.S. 572 , 598 (1976)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The paradigm of the “special circumstances” that make abstention appropriate is a case where the challenged state statute is susceptible of a construction by the state judiciary that would avoid or modify the necessity of reaching a federal constitutional question ... Of course, the abstention doctrine contemplates that deference to state court adjudication only be made where the issue of state law is uncertain ... But when the state statute at issue is fairly susceptible to an interpretation which would render unnecessary or substantially modify the federal constitutional question, abstention may be required in order to avoid unnecessary friction in federal-state relations, interference with important state functions, tentative decisions on questions of state law and premature constitutional adjudication.”
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.