Doe v. Dunbar’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2004
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Flast v. Cohen · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Zwickler v. Koota
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has not, to our knowledge, ever adopted such a harsh and absolute requirement [that plaintiffs must first disobey the law]. In fact, the court has held by necessary implication that it is not deprived of jurisdiction on direct appeal merely because the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action has not disobeyed the challenged statute or has not been directly threatened with prosecution. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 101-102 , 89 S.Ct. 266 , 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968). The scope of the court's holding in Epperson is difficult to ascertain because the majority does not discuss the case or controversy problem. Nevertheless, the fact that the court decided the case on its merits can mean no less than that a specific and immediate threat of enforcement is not a constitutional requirement in a declaratory judgment action. While the many Supreme Court decisions which both defendants and plaintiffs have cited may not be entirely reconcilable, we can discern several considerations which the court has taken into account in judging whether there exists a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. While there need not be a threat of immediate prosecution, it should nevertheless not appear that the state maintains a policy of non-prosecution which might render any decision unnecessary and even inappropriate. Compare Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961), with Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 , 79 S.Ct. 178 , 3 L.Ed.2d 222 (1958); but”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 , 89 S.Ct. 266 , 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), in which the court struck down a statute with no record of enforcement, casts some doubt upon the present vitality of Poe v. Ullman.”
1 later decision 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.