Anderson v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
647 F.3d 1165 · 2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 16913
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Kansas v. Hendricks · Minnesota v. Murphy
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“like the sex offender registration requirement in. Smith,” the District of Columbia's requirement, premised on the plaintiff’s conviction for a lifetime registration offense did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause, and citing cases that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
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.