360 F. Supp. 559 - Elder v. Rampton’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 7324 · 5 U.S.C. § 7326
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY · Grayned v. City of Rockford
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The instant circumstance is unlike that of the typical claim of over-breadth involving vague statutory terms which could be saved only by an extensive judicial gloss. Plaintiff proposes a case of black or white over-breadth: the term “political” as used in the Utah law either includes partisan and nonpartisan or just partisan activities. If it is assumed, as plaintiff assumes, that “political” includes non-partisan activities, then a single, civil proceeding may be brought by an appropriate plaintiff in state or federal court to decide the constitutionality of such an application. If it is assumed that the breadth of the statute is unclear as to non-partisan activities, the Utah court can appropriately interpret the statute, applying if it chooses, the “readily apparent construction [which] suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating” the statute. We therefore conclude that the statute’s coverage of non-partisan activity is an issue not properly raised in this proceeding. [Id. at 563-564].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he liberal procedures for litigating overbroad statutes are appropriately applied only when “no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the [statute] in a single prosecution” or litigation. Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at [518], 521 of 405 U.S., 92 S.Ct. 1103, [ 31 L.Ed.2d 408 ] (1972), quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, supra, at [479], 491 of 880 U.S., 85 S.Ct. 1116 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 22 ] (1965). [Additional citations omitted.] When a statute may be pruned of its overbreadth by one judicial determination, and especially a civil determination, then constitutionally protected prerogatives are relatively easily vindicated without allowing special standing, and special relief .... [Id at 563].”
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.