Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 671 F.2d 426 - Fernandez-Roque v. Smith

Fernandez-Roque v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

671 F.2d 426 · 1982

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Jean v. Nelson (1984), Garcia-Mir v. Smith (1985)

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

33019821990200020102020decided

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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Sampson v. Murray · Schlagenhauf v. Holder · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.

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

  1. “a controlling issue of national significance”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Since we find it imperative for the district court to resolve the question of its jurisdiction, we remand this case with the direction that it conduct forthwith only such hearing as is necessary to a determination of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Such hearing should be conducted without any discovery as to issues other than that of jurisdiction. Upon the conclusion of such hearing, the district court shall enter an opinion setting forth the reasons for its decision. To the extent, if any, that the appellees have altered the nature of the relief sought in their amended complaint, the district court shall specify the exact nature of the claim or claims as to which jurisdiction is now alleged to reside in the district court. The question of subject matter jurisdiction shall then be certified to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), upon request by any party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he Court of Appeals ... may thereupon [after the district court's certification], in its discretion , permit an appeal to be taken from such order.”
    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.