Blake v. Papadakos’s Empirical Analysis
953 F.2d 68 · 1992
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Robert Gruntz Robert Gruntz v. Opinion County of Los Angeles (2000), Focus v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (1996)
22 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Sumner v. Mata
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review final adjudications of a state's highest court or to evaluate constitutional claims that are 'inextricably intertwined with the state court's [decision] in a judicial proceeding.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“administrative/non-adjudicative acts, generally require not the application of existing laws to particular acts but rather ’look[ing] into the future and chang[ing] existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.” Id., at 72 . Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was promulgating a schedule and map for the conduct of general elections in the future. This act is a quintessentially administrative, non-adjudi catory act. The order is drafted in the most open-ended, general way, the hallmark of legislative as opposed to judicial functions. Since the challenged order is of a non-adjudicatory nature, the federal court has jurisdiction over this challenge to its constitutionality. 6 . Article I, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“habeas corpus jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is a constitutionally authorized exception to the principle of Rooker-Feldman.”
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.