Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 591 F.3d 1147 - Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger’s Empirical Analysis

591 F.3d 1147 · 2009

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Roberts v. United States Jaycees · Williams v. Rhodes

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

  1. “(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the district court’s order raises new and important problems or issues of first impression.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although the evidence presented by Proponents is lacking in particularity, it is consistent with the self-evident conclusion that important First Amendment interests are implicated by the plaintiffs’ discovery request. The declaration creates a reasonable inference that disclosure would have the practical effects of discouraging political association and inhibiting internal campaign communications that are essential to effective association and expression.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]nfringements on [the freedom to associate] may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”
    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.