Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 394 F.2d 764 - Gomez v. Layton

Gomez v. Layton’s Empirical Analysis

394 F.2d 764 · 1968

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 1983
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1983 · most notably Kolender v. Lawson (1983), Don Morrow v. District of Columbia, in the Matter of Harry T. Alexander, Judge, District of Columbia Court of General Sessions (1969)

31 federal appellate · 4 district ·

310196819701980decided

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 Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Berman v. Parker · Zemel v. Rusk · Aptheker v. Secretary of State · Kent v. Dulles

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

  1. “[T]he district court should first consider whether, assuming the District of Columbia vagrancy statute is constitutional, the vagrancy observations practices are nevertheless unconstitutional. If they are not, the court should next consider whether it has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the [statute] itself. If it does have jurisdiction, the court should make a constitutional determination. If at any point the court decides that appellant has a valid constitutional claim, it should determine the necessity and availability of injunctive relief.”
    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.