Raines v. Byrd’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
414 federal appellate · 399 district · 176 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,953 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)
414 federal appellate · 399 district · 176 state decisions — followed in 26 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 2 U.S.C. § 691
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Buckley v. Valeo · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.
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. · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
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 1,953 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”
59 later decisions quote this exact passage“We attach some importance to the fact that appellees have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suit.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. 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 connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be fairly ... tracefablej to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] 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.”
21 later decisions 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.