Schmidling v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis
1 F.3d 494 · 1993
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Hays v. City of Urbana (1997), Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Ind. (2008)
5 federal appellate ·
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. § 1291
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · Kentucky v. Graham · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · O'Shea v. Littleton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To set forth the requisite Article III case or controversy, the litigant must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant. A litigant does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventative relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough. The injury, however, cannot be abstract. It must be alleged that the plaintiff has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged statute or official conduct. The injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. Of course, the difference between ari abstract question and a case or controversy is one of degree ... and is not discernible by any precise test. In addition, the litigant must satisfy the causation and redressibility prongs of the Art. Ill minima by showing that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. A litigant must clearly and specifically set forth these Article III standing requirements with sufficient facts, because a federal court is powerless to create, its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise deficient allegations of standing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the plaintiffs claim that they and Wojciechowski engage in the same type of gardening behavior, the record is unclear regarding the similarity between her garden and those of all the plaintiffs. Also, the City cited Wojciechowski not only for having weeds on her property, but for storing bricks and lumber on her property as well. The existence of the bricks and lumber may have created some other hazard, nuisance, or health problem that motivated the City to issue the citation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must also show that the City has threatened them with immediate prosecution under the current weed ordinance.”
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.