Harris v. James’s Empirical Analysis
127 F.3d 993 · 1997
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Doe 1-13 Doe 1-13 1-13 v. Chiles & a (1998), Bruggeman ex rel. Bruggeman v. Blagojevich (2003)
31 federal appellate · 13 district · 1 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1123 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396C (§ 1904 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396D (§ 1905 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 609 (§ 409 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Cort v. Ash · Maine v. Thiboutot · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]o long as the statute itself confers a specific right upon the plaintiff, and a valid regulation merely further defines or fleshes out the content of that right, then the statute — in conjunction with the regulation — may create a federal right as further defined by the regulation .... On the other hand, if the regulation defines the content of a statutory provision that creates no federal right ..., or if the regulation goes beyond explicating the specific content of the statutory provision and imposes distinct obligations in order to further the broad objectives underlying the statutory provision, ... the regulation is too far removed from Congressional intent to constitute a “federal right” enforceable under § 1983.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“goes beyond explicating the specific content of the statutory provision”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter, such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan. This section is not intended to limit or expand grounds for determining the availability of private actions to enforce State plan requirements other than by overturning any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 , 112 S.Ct. 1360 , 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 671(a)(15) of this title is not enforceable in a private right of action.”
6 later decisions 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.