981 F. Supp. 2d 1020 - Simon v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
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.
“[Bjecause the Racing Commission has wide-ranging authority over the lucrative horse racing industry, its acts are likely to provoke lawsuits by disappointed parties-in-interest. This case is evidence of that conclusion: because any decision that the Racing Commission made would have substantial economic consequences for some players in the industry, its decision would give those players reason to sue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“This argument, however, ... fails on the third prong for the same reason it failed on the first prong: the facts asserted do not respond to the test applied. The test asks whether the regulatory framework contains sufficient safeguards to control unconstitutional conduct and not whether a particular administrative tribunal in a particular case engaged in allegedly unconstitutional conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Racing Commission carried out its role in this case cannot transform the Racing Commission’s otherwise clearly judicial functions into nonjudicial functions. If the judicial process prong examined the way judges behaved in a particular ease, that would vitiate the core principle of judicial immunity[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.