Dufresne v. Veneman’s Empirical Analysis
114 F.3d 952 · 1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2017
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · Alexander v. Choate · Lane v. Pena Secretary of Transportation · Preiser v. Newkirk · California v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“State Defendants-Appellees' Supplemental Declaration in Support of Mootness Contention, Declaration of Patrick Minyard, Apr. 16, 1997, at 3. Not one live Medfly has been found in the state since 1995. Moreover, the release of sterile insects has proved so effective an eradication technique that aerial spraying is unlikely even if a new infestation were discovered. See Federal Defendants/Appellees' Supplemental Declaration Re Mootness, Declaration of Charles P. Schwalbe, Associate Deputy Administrator, USDA, Apr. 18, 1997, at 3; see also James P. Miller,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dufresne v. Veneman“applicable to ADA claims). The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs appeal. 6 Dufresne has waived her claim for money damages from the state defendants. See Brief of Appellant at 28-29. Her claim for money damages from the federal defendants is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Lane v. Pena, --- U.S. ----, ----, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 2097 , 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dufresne v. Veneman“against her under the ADA. Her co-plaintiffs are members of a support group for chronic fatigue sufferers who claim they would be injured by future spraying. 4 Dufresne sued federal and state officials for money damages--compensation for injuries from past spraying 2 --and for injunctive relief. Her co-plaintiffs sued solely for injunctive relief. Since injunctive relief under the ADA is limited to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dufresne v. Veneman
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.