Thorstenn v. Barnard’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.2d 1393 · 1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012
2 federal appellate · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 48 U.S.C. § 1561 · 48 U.S.C. § 1611
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Gomillion v. Lightfoot · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Corallo v. United States · Toomer v. Witsell
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Without attempting to define the limits of our supervisory power, we decline to apply it in this case. Both the nature of the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the reach of its residency requirements implicate interests beyond the federal system. As to the former, the District Court, which was given its current form and jurisdiction by Congress in the Revised Organic Act of 1954, is not a United States district court, but an institution with attributes of both a federal and a territorial court. . . . The application of [the local court] Rule itself similarly extends beyond practice in the federal system . . . [and] applies to admission to the Bar of the Virgin Islands, and so governs practice before the territorial courts. Because these territorial interests are intertwined with the operation of [the] Rule, we decline to examine this case as an issue of supervisory power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State's objective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Barnard v. Thorstenn“exercises exclusive federal jurisdiction in that Territory under the Revised Organic Act. . . .”
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.