Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 945 F.2d 628 - Chez Sez III Corp. v. Township of Union

Chez Sez III Corp. v. Township of Union’s Empirical Analysis

945 F.2d 628 · 1991

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 18 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Artway v. Attorney General of New Jersey (1996), Jackson v. City of Bremerton (2001)

17 federal appellate · 18 district ·

3501991200020102020decided

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

Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union · New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans · City of Houston v. Hill

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Uncertain issues of state law underlying the federal constitutional claims brought in federal court; (2) State law issues amenable to a state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow, the scope of adjudication of the constitutional claims; (3) A federal court’s erroneous construction of state law would be disruptive of important state policies.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “when a federal court is presented with both a federal constitutional issue and an unsettled issue of state law whose resolution might narrow or eliminate the federal constitutional question, ... [thus] avoid[ing] 'needless friction with state policies.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When a facial challenge is involved, abstention is generally not appropriate because `extensive adjudications, under a variety of factual situations, [would be required to bring the statute] within the bounds of permissible constitutional certainty[.]'”
    2 later decisions 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.