Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 LED2D 493 - Doe v. Reed

Doe v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

178
cited by 178 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

72 federal appellate · 22 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 178 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Ezell v. City of Chicago (2011), American Civil Liberties Union v. Alvarez (2012)

72 federal appellate · 22 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 states

174020102020decided

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 Buckley v. Valeo · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission · Burdick v. Takushi · United States v. Stevens

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

  1. “reach beyond the particular circumstances”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[OJbviously has characteristics of both: The claim is “as applied” in the sense that it does not seek to strike the PRA in all its applications, but only to the extent it covers referendum petitions. The claim is “facial” in that it is not limited to plaintiffs’ particular case, but challenges application of the law more broadly to all referendum petitions. 44”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We have a series of precedents considering First Amendment challenges to disclosure requirements in the electoral context. These precedents have reviewed such challenges under what has been termed “exacting scrutiny.” That standard requires a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.”
    3 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.