54 F. Supp. 2d 1014 - Shaffer v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2021
1 district · 1 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 2 U.S.C. § 31 (Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964) · 2 U.S.C. § 80 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1402
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Flast v. Cohen · Bennett v. Spear
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schaffer v. Clinton“acts of Congress under its taxing and spending authority when those acts implicate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schaffer v. Clinton“an aberrant use of the concept of discretion”
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.