Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.3d 613 - Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. City of League City

Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. City of League City’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.3d 613 · 2007

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation (2010), American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc. (2008)

20 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

310200720102020decided

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 · Hensley v. Eckerhart · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · United States v. Salerno · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n

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

  1. “a constitutional harm adequate to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must show: (1) [he] has suffered, or imminently will suffer, a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to [Russ's] conduct; and (3) a favorable judgment is likely to redress the injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “No person who is within a publié roadway may solicit or sell or distribute any material to the occupant of any motor vehicle stopped on a public roadway in obedience to a traffic control signal light. It is specifically provided, however, that a person, other than a person twelve years of age or younger; may solicit or sell or distribute material to the occupant of a motor vehicle on a public roadway so long as he or she remains on the surrounding sidewalks and unpaved shoulders, and not in or on the roadway itself, including the medians and islands.”
    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.