Baur v. Veneman’s Empirical Analysis
352 F.3d 625 · 2003
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan (2004), Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2016)
40 federal appellate · 13 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 · Warth v. Seldin · 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
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies” and thus imposes what the Supreme Court has described as the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,”— injury-in-fact, causation, and redressa-bility. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must therefore allege, and ultimately prove, that he has suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and which is likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'tight connection between the type of injury ... allege[d] and the fundamental goals of the statutes ... sue[d] under'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ban the use of downed livestock as food for human consumption.” Id. at 628 . The court did not discuss whether the plaintiffs had any way to obtain meat that did not come from downed livestock. Here, however, the plaintiffs posit that poultry from farmers' markets does not expose them to the injury allegedly resulting from NPIS poultry. See Foran Deck ¶ 3, J.A. 48. Although Baur did not discuss the absence of alternative, and allegedly safe, meat suppliers, the Second Circuit approvingly cited Foreman for the proposition that, if an alternative is available, a plaintiff must allege that it is”
2 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.