Davis v. Bayless’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.3d 367 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012), Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh (2005)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]ur Circuit has not allowed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar an action in federal court when that same action would be allowed in the state court of the rendering state.”); cf. David Vincent, Inc. v. Broward County, Fla., 200 F.3d 1325 , 1332 (11th Cir.2000) (refusing to apply Rooker-Feldman, based on its conclusion that”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we have required that the district court explain its reasons in sufficient detail to allow this Court to determine whether the district court correctly applied the proper legal rule.” Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 376 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Wildbur v. ARCO Chem. Co., 974 F.2d 631, 644 (5th Cir.1992)). This is because we have”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Parratt/Hudson doctrine dictates that a state actor's random and unauthorized deprivation of a plaintiff's property does not result in a violation of procedural due process rights if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy.”
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.