Harmon v. City of Kansas City’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.3d 321 · 1999
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Rural Water System # 1 v. City of Sioux Center (2000), Mink v. Suthers (2007)
19 federal appellate · 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. § 1988
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Younger v. Harris · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the Supreme Court advanced the position that federal courts should refrain from interfering with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Under Younger , abstention is warranted if the action complained of constitutes the basis of an ongoing state judicial proceeding, the proceedings implicate important state interests, and an adequate opportunity exists in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. See Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957 , 959 (8th Cir.1996).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mere fact that injurious activity took place in the past does nothing to convey standing to seek injunctive relief against future constitutional violations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Standing to challenge a statute or ordinance as applied is present when the challenger has experienced a direct injury or will soon sustain a direct injury redressable by the court.”
1 later decision 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.