Mikhail v. Kahn’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2258D · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 516
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Younger v. Harris · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prohibited appellate review 'consists of a review of the proceedings already conducted by the 'lower' tribunal to determine whether it reached its result in accordance with the law.' " Id. (citation omitted). Where a plaintiff attempts to litigate a matter that was previously litigated, "there is jurisdiction as long as the 'federal plaintiff present[s] some independent claim,' even if that claim denies a legal conclusion reached by the state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the defendants, rather than the state court judgments, caused the injuries complained of, Rooker-Feldman does not apply and the district court is not barred from reviewing those injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he second and fourth requirements are the key to determining whether a federal suit presents an independent, non-barred claim.”
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.