Whitmore v. Arkansas’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
975 federal appellate · 561 district · 267 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,504 later decisions (56 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc (2000)
975 federal appellate · 561 district · 267 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 454 · 28 U.S.C. § 460
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Warth v. Seldin · Gregg v. Georgia · Teague v. Lane
Cited together with Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Allen v. Wright · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · 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 3,504 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.”
204 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an “injury in fact” that is “concrete,” “distinct and palpable,” and “actual or imminent.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 , 110 S.Ct. 1717 , 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). Additionally, the party must establish that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“whether he has capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or on the other hand whether he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Vargas v. Lambert · Heidnik v. Horn
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.