Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 535 F.2d 1259 - Briscoe v. Levi

Briscoe v. Levi’s Empirical Analysis

535 F.2d 1259 · 1976

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
January 2018
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018

12 federal appellate · 3 district ·

12019761980199020002010decided

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

Relationships

Relies on Younger v. Harris · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Leedom v. Kyne · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · United States v. Menasche

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

  1. “It is . . . apparent that even where the intent of Congress was to preclude judicial review, a limited jurisdiction exists in the court to review actions which on their face are plainly in excess of statutory authority. . . . The district court in the instant case was careful to note that the actual computations made by the Director of the Census were not within its jurisdiction to review, and that its scope of review was limited to determining whether the Director acted 'consistent with the apparent meaning of the statute.' Narrowly defined in this manner, the jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the Director's determinations is supported by precedent . . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(T)he provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply in any State or any political subdivision of a State which (i) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1972, any test or device, and with respect to which (ii) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 per centum of the citizens of voting age were registered on November 1, 1972, or that less than 50 per centum of such persons voted in the Presidential election of November 1972.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “A determination or certification of the Attorney General or of the Director of the Census under this section . . . shall not be reviewable in any court . . . .”
    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.