810 F. Supp. 2d 127 - Doe v. Siddig’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1584 · 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (§ 112 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) · 18 U.S.C. § 1595 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]onclud[ing] that permitting private litigants to bring suit under Section 1595 for violations of Sections 1589 and 1590 based on conduct predating December 19, 2003 would have an impermissible retroactive effect, one that this Court declines to endorse absent an affirmative contrary expression of intent from Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barjo v. Cherian“[c]ourts in this Circuit have consistently held that there is no private right of action under the Thirteenth Amendment,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'courts need not resolve arguments raised in a cursory manner and with only the most bare-bones arguments in support.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chien v. Sullivan
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.