Ny v. Power Authority State Ny’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Lashawn A. v. Barry (1996), United States v. Quintieri (2002)
15 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions
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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Cort v. Ash · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.' " DiLaura v. Power Auth., 982 F.2d 73 , 76 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting In re PCH Assocs., 949 F.2d 585 , 592 (2d Cir.1991)); see also NLRB v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 55 F.3d 74, 77-78 (2d Cir.1995). The doctrine is "admittedly discretionary and does not limit a court's power to reconsider its own decisions prior to final judgment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, is the plaintiff one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“subject matter jurisdiction is particularly suited for reconsideration”
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.