Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 704 F.3d 772 - Cooper v. Ramos

Cooper v. Ramos’s Empirical Analysis

704 F.3d 772 · 2012

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc

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

  1. “It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing an 'independent claim' that, though similar or even identical to issues aired in state court, was not the subject of a previous judgment by the state court,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280 , 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517 , 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), however, and”
    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.