Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 789 F.2d 334 - Nordgren v. Hafter

Nordgren v. Hafter’s Empirical Analysis

789 F.2d 334 · 1986

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Edelstein v. Wilentz (1987), Del's Big Saver Foods, Inc. v. Carpenter Cook, Inc. (1986)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

11019861990200020102020decided

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 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Cherek v. United States · Streeter v. United States

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

  1. “over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The record reveals that appellant mounts several “general constitutional challenges” which support subject matter jurisdiction within the meaning of Feldman. Feldman, for example, contended that a District of Columbia bar rule was unconstitutional because, inter alia, it created an irrebutable presumption that only accredited law school graduates are fit to practice law. It was held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear this claim because it did not require review of the judicial decision of the District of Columbia as it related specifically to Feldman’s situation; it only had to review the rule as promulgated.”
    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.