Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 F.3d 12 - Lisa's Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta

Lisa's Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta’s Empirical Analysis

185 F.3d 12 · 1999

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
1
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Harlen Associates v. The Incorporated Village of Mineola and Board of Trustees for the Incorporated Village of Mineola (2001), Giordano v. City of New York (2001)

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

480199920002010decided

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 City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Plyler v. Doe · Kelly v. Robinson · Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp.

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

  1. “(1) the person, compared with others similarly situated, was selectively treated; and (2) that such selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “irrational prejudice” against those with disabilities). 11 . A second body of law — addressing local authority to regulate signs bearing trademarks — cuts against IFA's position as well. Interpreting a provision in the Act prohibiting localities from '‘requir[ing] alteration of a registered mark,” 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (b), we determined that “a zoning ordinance may not require a change in a registered mark” but may”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “appellant's assertion that the Town enforced the ordinance against it with an impermissible motivation [was] sheer `conjecture and speculation'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.