Montez v. Hickenlooper’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.3d 1126 · 2011
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum · Price v. Philpot · Dodge v. Cotter Corp. · Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. · United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the early 1990s, Colorado state prisoners initiated a class action lawsuit alleging that state officials were committing ongoing violations of disabled prisoners’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C.' § 1983. In 2003, the parties entered into a consent decree, called a “Remedial Plan,” setting forth the actions Defendants would take to bring the state prison system into compliance with the applicable statutes and establishing a procedure through which individual inmates could bring damage claims for injuries incurred. Specifically, the consent decree provided that the damage claims of individual class members would be determined by a special master, subject to abuse-of-discretion review by the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We simply hold that, when a consent decree does not resolve claims itself but instead simply establishes a mechanism under which the district court will resolve claims, the parties may appeal the' district court’s final resolution of such claims to this court unless the consent decree contains a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to appellate review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the somewhat analogous situation of appeals from district court orders reviewing arbitration decisions.” 640 F.3d at 1132 (citing MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821 , 830 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that”
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.