Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 F.3d 459 - Nader v. Blackwell

Nader v. Blackwell’s Empirical Analysis

545 F.3d 459 · 2008

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Libertarian Party v. Judd (2013), Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen (2013)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

320200820102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Anderson v. Creighton · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Erickson v. Pardus

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

  1. “[n]o person shall be entitled ... to sign or circulate any declaration of candidacy or any nominating, initiative, referendum, or recall petition, unless the person is registered as an elector and will have resided in the county and precinct where the person is registered for at least thirty days at the time of the next election,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Indeed, common sense suggests that, in the course of convincing voters to sign their petitions, candidate-petition circulators engage in at least as much “interactive political speech” — if not more such speech — than initiative-petition circulators.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “We hold that the voter-registration requirement . . . is a severe restriction on political speech which cannot survive strict scrutiny.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.