McClure v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.3d 404 · 2003
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. (2008), United States v. Perry (2004)
24 federal appellate · 1 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 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (§ 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973) · 18 U.S.C. § 3563 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Santobello v. New York · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[p]rudential standing limitations help courts identify proper questions of judicial adjudication, and further define the judiciary's role in the separation of powers.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an `injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court abuses its discretion if it: (1) relies on clearly erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the facts.”
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.