Pietzsch v. Mattox’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 129 · 1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2012
2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Procunier v. Martinez · Steffel v. Thompson · Zwickler v. Koota
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether the disposition of a question of state law involved in the case can eliminate or narrow the scope of the federal constitutional issue; 2) whether the state law question presents difficult, obscure or unclear issues of state law; or 3) whether a federal decision could later conflict with subsequent state court resolutions concerning the same regulatory program or scheme, thus engendering more confusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Pjlaintiffs have sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with regard to the facial unconstitutionality of these statutes.”); see also Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644, 649 (6th Cir.2007) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.