Sun Valley Foods Company Sun Valley Foods Company v. Detroit Marine Terminals Inc Sun Valley Foods Company’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.2d 186 · 1986
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Sonnax Industries, Inc. v. Tri Component Products Corp. (1990), Catz v. Chalker (1998)
35 federal appellate · 11 district ·
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. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 158 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Catlin v. United States · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may entertain a collateral attack on a state court judgment which is alleged to have been procured through fraud, deception, accident, or mistake....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[review] of final determinations in state judicial proceedings can be obtained only in the United States Supreme Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 [ 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311-12 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 ] (1983). See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 . See also Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296 [ 90 S.Ct. 1739 , 1747-48, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 ] (1970); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 [ 44 S.Ct. 149, 150 , 68 L.Ed. 362 ] (1923). A United States district court “has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 [ 103 S.Ct. at 1314-15 ], This is true, even though the state court judgment may have been erroneous. Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1142 (2d Cir.1986).”
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.