96 F. Supp. 2d 369 - Cunningham v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 372
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Haines v. Kerner · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Hewitt v. Helms
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Straightforward application of the statutory language leads this court to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to consider challenges to “final orders” rendered by a chief judge and actions taken by the Judicial Council in connection with a § 372 proceeding. Persons aggrieved in the course of § 372 proceedings have remedies. Those remedies lie with the Judicial Council and the Judicial Conference of the United States, not with this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the chief judge, by written order stating his reasons, may — • (A) dismiss the complaint, if he finds it to be (i) not in conformity with paragraph (1) of this subsection, (ii) directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or (in) frivolous; or (B) conclude the proceedings if he finds that appropriate corrective action has been taken.”
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.