Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 471 F.3d 1199 - Elend v. Basham

Elend v. Basham’s Empirical Analysis

471 F.3d 1199 · 2006

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
5
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Florida State Conference of the National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Browning (2008), Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission (2009)

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

970200620102020decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Allen v. Wright · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

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

  1. “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]ast wrongs serve as evidence of whether there is a real and immediate threat of future injury”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III's requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decision-making by the court.”
    3 later decisions 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.