Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 804 F.3d 1203 - Alexander v. Rosen

Alexander v. Rosen’s Empirical Analysis

804 F.3d 1203 · 2015

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Younger v. Harris · Erickson v. Pardus · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Stump v. Sparkman

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

  1. “[U]nlike other cases where we have abstained from addressing child support issues, Alexander does not ask us to regulate "the day-to-day conduct of state hearings," assess the constitutionality of procedures used in those hearings, or opine on the merits of the child support determination. See Tindall v. Wayne Cty. Friend of Court , 269 F.3d 533 , 539-40 (6th Cir. 2001) ; Kelm v. Hyatt , 44 F.3d 415 , 418-21 (6th Cir. 1995) ; Mann v. Conlin , 22 F.3d 100 , 101-03, 105-06 (6th Cir.1994) ; Sevier v. Turner , 742 F.2d 262 , 269-71 (6th Cir. 1984). This case does not require the sort of "unduly intrusive interference with" a pending state case, see Sevier , 742 F.2d at 270 , that typically justifies Younger abstention.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “entangle us in the merits of the state child support proceedings, and accordingly we may answer them without treading on protected state interests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.