Day v. Apoliona’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.3d 1027 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2021
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1123 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Morissette v. United States · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Cannon v. University of Chicago
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the explanation for how the Administration settled on the. list of eight countries is obscured.” Hawai'i TRO, 2017 WL 4639560 , at n.16. This is due, in large part, to the fact that no court has been able to consider—or even view—the DHS report in question. 4 . Section 6(d) of the Proclamation permits individuals whose visas were marked revoked or canceled as a result of EO-1 to obtain "a travel document confirming that the individual is permitted to travel to the United States and seek entry under the terms” of the re- voiced or canceled visa. 82 Fed, Reg. at 45,-171. - 5 . The Government does not challenge Plaintiffs' Article III standing on appeal. Nonetheless, we "have an obligation to consider Article III standing independently, as wé lack jurisdiction when there is no standing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawaii v. Trump“It cannot be said that the OHA trustees are abusing their discretion in supporting legislation that could affect challenges to programs favoring Hawaiians and native Hawaiians. The OHA trustees are reasonably exercising their fiduciary judgment when they expend trust funds in support of the Akaka Bill. That action is consistent with the public trust requirement that trust funds be used for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, even if the funds simultaneously better the conditions of Hawaiians.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kealoha v. Machado.“[E]ach Native Hawaiian plaintiff, as a beneficiary of the trust created by [HHCA § 5(f) ], has an individual right to have the trust terms complied with, and therefore can sue under § 1983 for violation of that right. Violations of this right may include, at minimum, wrongs of the type of which Day complains: expenditure of funds for purposes not enumerated under § 5(f).”
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.