Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 F.3d 401 - Sinclair Oil Corporation v. County of Santa Barbara

Sinclair Oil Corporation v. County of Santa Barbara’s Empirical Analysis

96 F.3d 401 · 1996

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (1998), County Concrete Corp. v. Township of Roxbury (2006)

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

200199620002010decided

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 Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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

  1. “consistently held that land use planning is a sensitive area of social policy that meets the first requirement for Pullman abstention.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “substantially advance a legitimate state interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) The complaint touches a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is open. (2) Such constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy. (3) The possibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.”
    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.