Curry’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2024
5 district · 5 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia · Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. · Mausolf v. Babbitt · Greene 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a government entity is a party and the case concerns a matter of sovereign interest, the government is presumed adequately to represent the interests of the public ... This pre sumption may be rebutted by a strong showing of inadequate representation, as, for example, by showing that the interest of the would-be intervener cannot be subsumed within the public interest represented by the government entity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) (citations omitted). Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1005 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). See also Curry v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 167 F.3d 420 , 423 (8th Cir. 1999) (”[W]hen a government entity is a party and the case concerns a matter of sovereign interest, the government is presumed adequately to represent the interests of the public . ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“rise to the level of a legally protectable interest necessary for mandatory intervention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.