The Cone Corporation v. Hillsborough County’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 1397 · 1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2014
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville · The Cone Corporation v. Hillsborough County · The Cone Corporation v. Hillsborough County
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“have in fact alleged any injury to their ability to compete stemming from the operation of the provision treating minority and non-minority contractors differently. In addressing this question, the district court should keep in mind the additional standing requirement that a party seeking to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction must demonstrate ... “injury in fact,” by which we mean an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) Whether Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that their “injury in fact” actually stemmed from the provision of the “MBE law” (which provides for the reduction in the minority business enterprise (MBÉ) goal for minority general contractors who do more than 50% of the work themselves), because it treated minority and non-minority contractors differently, and thus have standing to bring such a claim? 2) Whether the Plaintiffs, should be granted leave to file a second amended complaint?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The `injury in fact' in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. And in the context of a challenge to a set-aside program, the `injury in fact' is the inability to compete on an equal footing in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract.”
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.