Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 270 FSUPP2D 779 - LeClerc v. Webb

LeClerc v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 19 U.S.C. § 3312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

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

  1. “1. Declaring that Rule XVII Section 3(B) of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution and is unenforceable to the extent that it bars nonpermanent resident aliens from sitting for the Louisiana Bar Examination and from becoming members of the Louisiana State Bar; 2. Declaring that Defendants may not deny nonpermanent resident aliens, because of their nonpermanent alien status, the opportunity to sit for the Louisiana State Bar Examination and to be admitted to the Louisiana State Bar; 3. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No State law, or the application thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or circumstance on the ground that the provision or application is inconsistent with [NAFTA], except in an action brought by the United States for purposes of declaring such law or application invalid.”
    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.