Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 358 U.S. 202 - Evers v. Dwyer

Evers v. Dwyer’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

423
cited by 423 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

145 federal appellate · 52 district · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 423 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Younger v. Harris (1971), Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union (1979)

145 federal appellate · 52 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 12 states

128019581960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 2201

Relies on Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. · Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne · Young v. Higbee Co.

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

  1. “conflicting contentions of the parties ... present a real, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, a dispute definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We do not believe that appellant, in order to demonstrate the existence of an ‘actual controversy’ over the validity of the statute here challenged, was bound to continue to ride the Memphis buses at the risk of arrest if he refused to seat himself in the space in such vehicles assigned to colored passengers. A resident of a municipality who cannot use transportation facilities therein without being subjected by statute to special disabilities necessarily has, we think, a substantial, immediate, and real interest in the validity of the statute which imposes the disability. That the appellant may have boarded this particular bus for the purpose of instituting this litigation is not significant.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “bus for the purpose of instituting this litigation is not significant”
    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.