Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 552 F.3d 757 - Preminger v. Peake

Preminger v. Peake’s Empirical Analysis

552 F.3d 757 · 2008

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 6 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n · United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. · Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.

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

  1. “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
    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.