Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 412 F.2d 1103 - National Student Ass'n v. Hershey

National Student Ass'n v. Hershey’s Empirical Analysis

412 F.2d 1103 · 1969

Citation profile

194
cited by 194 later decisions
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

94 federal appellate · 29 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 194 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin (1970), United States v. Spock (1969)

94 federal appellate · 29 district · 4 state decisions

1290196919701980199020002010decided

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 Flast v. Cohen · United States v. O'Brien · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson

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

  1. “(1) the severity and scope of the alleged chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms, (2) the likelihood of other opportunities to vindicate such First Amendment rights as may be infringed with reasonable promptness, and (3) the nature of the issues which full adjudication on the merits must resolve; and the need for factual referents in order properly to define and narrow the issues.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “every plaintiff who alleges a First Amendment chilling effect and shivers in court has [not] thereby established a case or controversy,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The [Supreme] Court spread the justiciability question along a continuum ranging between “a general threat by officials to enforce those laws which they are charged to administer” and “a direct threat of punishment against a named [party] . . . for a completed act.” Suits predicated on threats nearer the “general” pole are not justiciable; suits nearer the direct pole are.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.