Mints v. Educational Testing Service’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 1253 · 1996
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc. (1999), In re U.S. Healthcare (1998)
24 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending. For example, district courts may award costs after an action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1919 . This Court has indicated that motions for costs or attorney’s fees are “independent proceeding^] supplemental to the original proceeding and not a request for a modification of the original decree.” Thus, even “years after the entry of a judgment on the merits” a federal court could consider an award of counsel fees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While there is no doubt that under Hunt v. Acromed Corp., 961 F.2d [1079] at 1081-82 [ (3d Cir.1992) ] ..., the district court should not have reconsidered the order of remand after the clerk of the district court sent the certified copy of the order to the clerk of the Superior Court, the principles underlying our opinion in that case are not applicable ■with respect to the ... application [for attorneys’ fees].”
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.