Duke v. James’s Empirical Analysis
713 F.2d 1506 · 1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2018
3 federal appellate ·
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 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Wisconsin v. Constantineau
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Abstention should not be used as a lever to force the state courts to do the federal courts' work.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“circumstances. 73 Id. (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted). The Duke Court also noted that in addition to the two requirements that must be met in order to for a Pullman abstention to be appropriate, courts should consider the following factors: 74 Factors arguing against abstention include delay, cost, doubt as to the adequacy of state procedures for having the state law question resolved, the existence of factual disputes, and the fact that the case has already been in litigation for a long time. Factors which might favor abstention include the availability of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fairly subject to an avoiding construction,”
2 later decisions 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.