Franks v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “balance `the fitness of the issues for judicial decision with the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 675 F. Supp. 2d 629 - Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH v. Kappos · Miller v. Brown

2. ““allows private citizens, in proper cases, to petition a federal court to enjoin State officials in their official capacities from engaging in future conduct that would violate the Constitution or a federal statute.” Antrican v. Odom, 290 F.3d 178, 184 (4th Cir. 2002). Specifically, Ex parte Young authorizes “suits against state officers for prospective equitable relief from ongoing violations of federal law.” Lytle v. Griffith, 240 F.3d 404, 408 (4th Cir.2001). To determine whether the Ex parte Young doctrine is applicable, as the Supreme Court recently observed, a court “need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 , 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1760 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shepard v. Irving

3. “(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of— (A)that buyer or renter, (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of— (A) that person; or (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island