Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Township Board of Trustees’s Empirical Analysis
411 F.3d 777 · 2005
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids (2008), Colvin v. Caruso (2010)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. O'Brien · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]n enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) (holding that Rockford’s antinoise ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague). Vague laws are problematic because they (1) “may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning,” (2) fail to “provide explicit standards for those who apply them,” and (3) threaten “to inhibit the exercise of [First Amendment] freedoms.” Id. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294 (quotation marks and footnote omitted). A law must therefore “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Id. at 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294 . The Supreme Court has explained that, “[condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.” Id. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Temporary permits are one way to comply with Freedman 's requirement that `[a]ny restraint imposed in advance of a final judicial determination on the merits must ... be limited to the preservation of the status quo.'”
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.