Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 F.3d 1 - Larsen v. Navy

Larsen v. Navy’s Empirical Analysis

525 F.3d 1 · 2008

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 33 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2009), Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell (2013)

9 federal appellate · 33 district ·

530200820102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 5 U.S.C. § 702

Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Powell v. McCormack · County of Los Angeles v. Davis · Church of Scientology of California v. United States

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[f]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Liturgical Protestant” refers to Protestant denominations that trace their origins to the Reformation, retain an established liturgy in their worship services, and practice infant baptism; it includes Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational faiths.”
    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.