Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 526 F.2d 64 - Jackson v. Dukakis

Jackson v. Dukakis’s Empirical Analysis

526 F.2d 64 · 1975

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably DeGrace v. Rumsfeld (1980), Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East (1976)

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

1501975198019902000decided

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 Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Stanley v. Illinois · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

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

  1. ““Although the categories of judicially cognizable injury have been broadened to include noneconomic injuries, [citations omitted], the Supreme Court has recently ‘stressed that the broadening of categories “is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury.” ’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although the categories of judicially cognizable injury have been broadened to include noneconomic injuries, (citations omitted), the Supreme Court has recently 'stressed that the broadening of Categories”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “willing to recognize psychological injury the most imperceptible and subjective of all suffering as a cognizable injury upon which a plaintiff may base his standing to sue.”
    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.