Kiaaina v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 287 · 1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2004
19 federal appellate ·
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 · 48 U.S.C. § 1424
Relies on Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Southland Corp. v. Keating · Urie v. Thompson · New York v. Quarles
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [Supreme] Court will review federal issues in state court cases even though further proceedings are pending when: (1) the federal issue is conclusive or the outcome is preordained; (2) the federal issue will survive the further proceedings and require adjudication; (3) the federal issue has been fully decided and review after remand might be precluded; (4) the federal issue has been fully decided and the case might be decided on nonfederal grounds below, but determination of the federal issue would immediately resolve the case and delaying review would erode federal policy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“orders involving unsettled issues of national importance where immediate review would serve the purpose of judicial economy underlying the finality rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Terrovona v. S Peterson · All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc. v. M/v Sea Producer, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Furniture, and Equipment, in Rem and Express Marine Transportation Company, in Personam M/v Sea Producer, O.N. 284437, Her Engines, Tackle, Apparel, Furniture and Equipment, in Rem, Defendant-Intervenor v. Peoples National Bank of Washington, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee“the final-judgment rule has been interpreted 'to preclude reviewability ... where anything further remains to be determined by a state court, no matter how dissociated from the only federal issue that has finally been adjudicated by the highest court of the State' " (citation omitted)) (per curiam). We recognize only two limited exceptions to this general rule. First, interlocutory review is appropriate when "declining to entertain the appeal would preclude future review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.