Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 F.3d 763 - Lee v. Keith

Lee v. Keith’s Empirical Analysis

463 F.3d 763 · 2006

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Ezell v. City of Chicago (2011), Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland (2011)

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

210200620102020decided

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 Williams v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Celebrezze · Storer v. Brown · Burdick v. Takushi · Jenness v. Fortson

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

  1. “[A] court ... must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the [c]ourt must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests; it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he ballot access restrictions Illinois places on independent General Assembly candidates—the early filing deadline and the ten percent signature requirement, together with the corresponding restriction disqualifying an independent candidate’s petition signers from voting in the primary—combine to severely burden Lee’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a candidate and voter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.