Henderson v. Stalder’s Empirical Analysis
287 F.3d 374 · 2002
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably Texas v. United States (2015), K.P. v. LeBlanc (2010)
25 federal appellate · 2 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 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Flast v. Cohen
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no allegation that the [distributors of the funds] have yet distributed any money from the Choose Life Fund or that in so doing, or contemplating distributions, they have actually advanced the religious ideologies of their respective organizations or religion in general.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the government's promotion of one side of the debate on the abortion rights issue in a speech forum, coupled with the lack of opportunity to present their opposing view.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Judge Davis’s view of standing would transform the First Amendment into a device for censorship rather than the enhancement of free speech. Under traditional free speech jurisprudence, the remedy for a speaker’s unjust exclusion from a forum is to admit the speaker, in other words, to afford Keeler access to specialty plates. Judge Davis’s acceptance of Keeler’s concept of injury would lead instead to the removal of a single speaker-reflecting the anti-abortion viewpoint-from the forum, with no corresponding enlargement of speaking opportunity for Keeler. The “redress” sought by Keeler not only fails to repair her alleged constitutional deprivation, but it would be, as far as I am aware, unique and fundamentally contrary to the law of free speech.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.