Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 F.3d 965 - Stewart v. Taylor

Stewart v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

104 F.3d 965 · 1997

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2017

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

90199720002010decided

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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Murphy v. Hunt · Doerr v. Doerr · Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee · Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut · Martin v. Delaware

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[C]ases that have traditionally fallen within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception have involved challenges to the validity of statutory provisions that will continue to operate past the election in question and that will burden future candidates in future elections.... In those circumstances, the challenge reflects a “continuing controversy,” and the construction of the statute, an understanding of its operation, and possible constitutional limits on its application, will have the effect of simplifying future challenges, thus increasing the likelihood that timely filed cases can be adjudicated before an election is held.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In general, a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
    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.