Maldonado v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.3d 945 · 2004
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Jones v. Blanas (2004), Brodheim v. Cry (2009)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder federal law, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Maldonado’s suit fares well as far as the first and third factors are concerned: Maldonado alleges that his current conduct is in violation of COAA, and Cal- trans has undoubtedly enforced the statute against Maldonado in the past. Although the second factor is a closer question, it also tends to favor Maldonado: while there may not have been specific threats of enforcement against his current signs, the fact that an injunction had been entered against Maldonado certainly qualifies as a threat of enforcement. We therefore conclude that Maldonado’s First Amendment challenge meets the constitutional component of ripeness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maldonado v. Morales“California’s Attorney General has stated that the Act “does not apply to the posting of a sign on private property adjacent to a highway that expresses’the property owner’s opinion concerning a state or federal public official.” While the Attorney General’s opinion also expresses doubt that the Act applies to noncommercial messages generally, the actual question it dealt with was much narrower. Moreover, while the Attorney General’s opinions are given substantial weight by the California courts, they are not considered controlling.”
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.