Newman v. Burgin’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 955 · 1991
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 105 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006), Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp. (1995)
28 federal appellate · 105 district · 5 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since “pendent” claims, by definition, consist of state matters over which Congress did not grant federal courts independent jurisdiction, it is not surprising that federal courts hesitate to hear them when, stripped of their federal support prior to any helpful, related, factual or legal determination, they stand before the court both pristine and alone. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has pointed out: `[I]n the usual case in• which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity-will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e are not prepared to say that, where other features of a case support dismissal, a federal district court (to dismiss the claim) also must be certain a plaintiff with pendent state-law claims can proceed in state court.”
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.