Clark v. Valeo’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.2d 642 · 1977
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably California Medical Association v. Federal Election Commission (1981), Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1982)
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Baker v. Carr
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A District Judge requested to make certification under § 437h should be free to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, or to permit that question to be decided by this court en banc ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“* * * This case has a lay-over and a one-house veto. There is nothing wrong with a lay-over provision, be it 30 days or six months. This can allow Congress to act in a constitutional manner through both houses and the President and that is permissible. But the one-house veto is not a “difference ... of degree”— it is a completely different method of accomplishing a legislative result by a congressional procedure not authorized by the Constitution; i. e., by one house instead of by two houses and the President. That the unconstitutional procedure (the one-house veto, not the lay-over) may also influence legislation is not to be equated with the influence or action that Congress may exercise or resort to during a simple lay-over provision. There may be a difference only in degree between the influence of a 30 day lay-over and a six months lay-over, but there is a radical difference in kind between the the influence of a one-house veto and any simply lay-over provision. The former is invalid, the latter is valid, for the reasons herein outlined. [Emphasis supplied.] [At 681, n. 4.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President of the United States may institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision of this Act. The district court immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of this Act to the United States court' of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.