Day v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 1127 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Habecker v. Town of Estes Park (2008), Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy (2010)
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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 20 U.S.C. § 1232G (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (§ 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Alexander v. Sandoval · Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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 connec tion 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'For purposes of standing,' we noted [in Walker ], 'the question cannot be whether the Constitution, properly interpreted, extends protection to the plaintiff's asserted right or interest,' because that would be a determination of the merits of the plaintiffs' claim under the guise of an evaluation of their standing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kerr v. Polis“To prevail at summary judgment on standing grounds, the defendant must show that the record is devoid of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that would support the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proving standing. . . . 'In response to a summary judgment motion,' the plaintiff cannot 'rest on”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.