Harrington v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1979), A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. (1977)
13 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 22 U.S.C. § 2422 · 31 U.S.C. § 1105 · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 403A (Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949) · 50 U.S.C. § 403F (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 403G (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 403J (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization
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.
“[W]hen a plaintiff’s standing is brought into issue the relevant inquiry is whether . . . the plaintiff has shown an injury to himself that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Absent such a showing, exercise of its power by a federal court would be gratuitous and thus inconsistent with the Art. Ill limitation. * * * * * * The necessity that the plaintiff who seeks to invoke judicial power stand to profit in some personal interest remains an Art. Ill requirement. The standing question in this suit therefore turns upon whether any individual respondent has established an actual injury, or whether the respondent organizations have established actual injury to any of their indigent members. 5}! ifc SfC # * * [Tjhe “case or controversy” limitation of Art. Ill still requires that a federal court act only to redress injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The most basic point to consider is that there ■ are no special standards for determining Congressional standing questions. Although the interests and injuries which legislators assert are surely different from those put forth by other litigants, the technique for analyzing the interests is the same. There is no single test or formula to be derived from the case law to determine if a particular complaining party has standing to sue. Rather, the case law provides a series of inquiries designed primarily68 to determine if the complaining party has suffered some injury in fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edwards v. Carter“Since the appellant in this case has suffered no injury in a constitutional sense, he is in effect seeking to use the court to vindicate his own political values and preferences. By so doing, appellant is asking us in large part to usurp the legislative function and to grant him the relief which his colleagues have refused him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edwards v. Carter
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.