Allen v. DeBello’s Empirical Analysis
861 F.3d 433 · 2017
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Steffel v. Thompson · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); Allen , 861 F.3d at 440 . The rationale for this holding is also based on prudential concerns over the institutional neutrality of the judiciary. "To require the Justices unnecessarily to assume the role of advocates or partisans on these issues would tend to undermine their role as judges. To encourage or even force them to participate as defendants in a federal suit attacking Commonwealth laws would be to require them to abandon their neutrality and defend as constitutional the very laws that the plaintiffs insist are unconstitutional-laws as to which their judicial responsibilities place them in a neutral posture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] plenary hearing is not required in every contested motion in New Jersey state court; a trial judge has discretion to decide such a motion without a hearing, [citing Shaw v. Shaw , 138 N.J. Super. 436 , 351 A.2d 374 , 376 (Ct. App. Div. 1976) ]. "It is only where the affidavits show that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact, and that the trial judge determines that a plenary hearing would be helpful in deciding such factual issues, that a plenary hearing is required." [citing id. ; Lepis v. Lepis , 83 N.J. 139 , 416 A.2d 45 , 55 (1980) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ ] Plaintiffs here are not challenging the state court judgments, but the underlying policy that governed those judgments: the alleged policy of the New Jersey state courts of stripping parents of custody, in favor of the other parents, without a plenary hearing and employing an allegedly improper best-interests-of-the-child standard in such proceedings. Thus, Rooker - Feldman does not bar suit.”
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.