Cheffer v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 1517 · 1995
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals (2002), United States v. Rahman (1999)
106 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 248 (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. Lopez · Steffel v. Thompson · Stirone 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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III's requirement of a case or controversy, and if so, whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete to permit effective decisionmaking by the court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Eighth Amendment challenges are generally not ripe until the imposition, or immediately impending imposition, of a challenged punishment or fine.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'are sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court.' " Digital Props , 121 F.3d at 589 (quoting Cheffer v. Reno , 55 F.3d 1517 , 1524 (11th Cir. 1995) ); see Abbott Labs. v. Gardner , 387 U.S. 136 , 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (holding that the purpose of the ripeness doctrine is "to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements”
2 later decisions 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.