Roberts v. Hamer’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.3d 578 · 2011
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992) · 42 U.S.C. § 4852D
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Caminetti v. United States · Davis v. Passman · Alexander v. Sandoval
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““whether this plaintiff has a cause of action under the statute.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 , 97 n. 2, 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). The question is closely related to the merits inquiry (oftentimes overlapping it) and is analytically distinct from the question whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case. See id.; Davis [v. Passman], 442 U.S. at [228] 239 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 2264 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) ] (distinguishing the concepts of Article III standing and cause of action and noting that “[w]hether petitioner has asserted a cause of action ... de pends not on the quality or extent of her injury,” as does the inquiry under Article III standing, “but on whether the class of litigants of which petitioner is a member may use the courts to enforce the right at issue”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Without [statutory intent], a cause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“analytically distinct from the question whether a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case.” Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578 , 580 (6th Cir.2011).”
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.