566 F. Supp. 2d 63 - Hollander v. McCain’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2023
5 federal appellate · 2 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 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (§ 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1403 (§ 303 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Estelle v. Gamble · Warth v. Seldin · Buckley v. Valeo · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlike [plaintiffs] other “disenfranchisement” theory, this one does not depend on the failure of his chosen candidate because o/McCain’s alleged ineligibility, but on the success of [plaintiffs] chosen candidate - who is McCain in this scenario - despite his alleged ineligibility. On this theory, however, [plaintiffs] alleged “disenfranchisement” flows not from the actions he has challenged here, i.e., McCain’s presidential campaign or the RNC’s likely selection of him as its nominee, but from his subsequent removal from office at the hands of someone else (presumably one of the co-equal branches), resulting (presumably, yet again) in a President different from the one [plaintiff] helped to elect.”
1 later decision 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.