Saucedo v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Mathews v. Eldridge · United States v. Salerno · Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party · George Bush v. Albert Gore
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“analyzing, in the context of a facial challenge, the particular circumstances of the plaintiffs and noting that it is proper to 'appl[y] the appropriate constitutional test to the restriction at issue,' rather than 'conjur[ing] up whether or not there is a hypothetical situation in which application of the statute might be valid.' ") The Court will determine the correct constitutional test by analyzing whether the statutes are content based or content neutral. III. Content Neutrality Plaintiffs and Defendants dispute whether the Wyoming statutes are content neutral or content based. "[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. As a result, the Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid ... and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is apparent that the risk of erroneous deprivation of the protected interest in absentee voting is not enormous, but the probable value of an additional procedure is likewise great in that it serves to protect the fundamental right to vote.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]n practice, '[a] facial challenge is best understood as a challenge to the terms of the statute, not hypothetical applications, and is resolved simply by applying the relevant constitutional test to the challenged statute.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.