Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
304 F.3d 183 · 2002
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Lerner v. Fleet Bank (2003), United States v. Caruthers (2006)
20 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Bennett v. Spear
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as a device for reaching a question of law that otherwise would have gone unaddressed,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to allow an exception to the rule against assuming the existence of standing in those “peculiar circumstances” where the outcome on the merits has been “foreordained” by another case such that “the jurisdictional question could have no effect on the outcome,” provided the court “d[oes] not use the pretermission of the jurisdictional question as a device for reaching a question of law that otherwise would have gone unaddressed.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A federal court has jurisdiction only if a claim presents a “case” or “controversy” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing requires (1) that the plaintiff has suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e., an invasion of a judicially cognizable interest which is concrete and particularized as well as actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical; (2) that there is a causal connection such that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
3 later decisions 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.