Daughtrey v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 1050 · 1978
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel (1988), The Honorable Helen Chenoweth v. William J. Clinton (1999)
10 federal appellate · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (§ 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Singleton v. Wulff · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“They do not contend that their votes are diluted in any particular election or in any particular geographical area, nor do they contend that they are an identifiable group of voters whose votes are disfavored vis-a-vis those of some other group. At best the complaint alleges that as qualified voters of political subdivisions anywhere in the United States, appellants’ votes in elections for any office, whether national, state, or local, are being diluted as a result of the reentry into the United States of an admittedly unknown, relatively small number of persons who allegedly should be excluded, and who therefore should not be entitled to vote.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he proposition that all (laws) are enforceable by any citizen simply because citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries ... has no boundaries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wright v. Regan
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.