Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2008 ME 59 - Schelling v. Lindell

Schelling v. Lindell’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Godin v. Schencks (2010), Nader v. Maine Democratic Party (2012)

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

200200820102020decided

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 Curtis v. Porter · Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital of Maine, Inc. · Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc. · Culbert v. Sampson's Supermarkets Inc. · Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster

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.

  1. “any written or oral statement made before or submitted to a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect such consideration; or any other statement falling within constitutional protection of the right to petition government.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is designed to guard against meritless lawsuits brought with the intention of chilling or deterring the free exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition the government by threatening would-be activists with litigation costs.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “carries the initial burden to show that the suit was based on some activity that would qualify as an exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition the government.”
    2 later decisions 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.