Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 F.3d 195 - Moccio v. New York State Office of Court Administration

Moccio v. New York State Office of Court Administration’s Empirical Analysis

95 F.3d 195 · 1996

Citation profile

217
cited by 217 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2025
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 217 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005), Hoblock v. Albany County Board of Elections (2005)

46 federal appellate · 14 district ·

15401996200020102020decided

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))

Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg

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

  1. “the Supreme Court’s use of “inextricably intertwined” means, at a minimum, that where a federal plaintiff had an opportunity to litigate a claim in a state proceeding (as either the plaintiff or defendant in that proceeding), subsequent litigation of the claim will be barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under the principles of preclusion.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “can occur only by way of a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court”
    4 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.