Wood v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis
117 F.3d 770 · 1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2018
1 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
Relies on Anderson v. Celebrezze · Burdick v. Takushi · Jenness v. Fortson · Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party · Norman v. Reed Cook County Officers Electoral Board
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for further factual development both as to the burdens ... upon independent candidates and their supporters, and as to the interests of the [government] in imposing that [burden]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It must then identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it must also consider the extent to which those interest make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of this caselaw, we doubt whether Wood can show that the Commonwealth’s 150 day filing deadline imposes any significant burden on the constitutional rights of Wood and his supporters, much less a “severe” burden. Rather it appears to us based on the limited record before us that the Commonwealth has simply chosen “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” treating independent and party candidates at least equally in all cases, and in many cases, allowing independent candidates more time to file their declarations and petitions than candidates of political parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.