Davis Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[Prudential limits] require that (1) a litigant assert his [or her] own legal interests rather than those of third parties, (2) courts refrain from adjudicating abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized grievances, and (3) a litigant demonstrate that her interests are arguably within the zone of interests intended to be protected by the statute, rule or constitutional provision on which the claim is based.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rohn v. At&T Mobility, LLC · McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands

2. ““When the question is whether any plaintiffs are entitled to relief under a statute which does not expressly provide the relief which is sought, the question is properly framed as whether a cause of action can be implied. The court must in that case decide whether a newly-fashioned remedial structure should be made available to a class of litigants not expressly entitled to relief under the statute. “In contrast, when there already exists a cause of action prescribing a particular remedy for a defined class of persons and the question is simply whether a particular plaintiff is also entitled to that relief, the question is properly addressed as one of standing. In such a case, the inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff is the proper person to press the claim. “Id. [Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145 ,] at 1151 n. 10 [(3d Cir. 1982)]. (citations omitted) In the present action, the district court dismissed the Davis’s claim against the Housing Authority solely on its conclusion that the Davises did not have standing because their interests ‘are not consistent with the purposes implicit in the statute at issue.’ Davis, 1996 WL 377189 , at [(E.D. Pa. July 3, 1996)]. Accordingly, we need not reach the separate question of whether the Lead Act provides the Davises, as successor tenants, with a cause of action against the Housing Authority for its alleged breach of duties.” Davis, 121 F.3d at 94-95 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 319 F. Supp. 2d 756 - Johnson v. City of Detroit · 43 Pa. D. & C.4th 546 - Hines v. Marcinik

3. “[T]he breadth of the zone of interests varies according to the provisions of law at issue, so that what comes within the zone of interests of a statute for purposes of obtaining judicial review of administrative action under the 'generous review provisions' of the [APA] may not do so for other purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. No. 98-5136