Harrell v. Florida Bar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[W]e believe it likely that Utah’s victory here would bring about the ultimate relief that Utah seeks. Victory would mean a declaration leading, or an injunction requiring, the Secretary to substitute a new “report” for the old one. Should the new report contain a different conclusion about the relative populations of North Carolina and Utah, the relevant calculations and consequent apportionment-related steps would be purely mechanical.... Under these circumstances, it would seem, as in Franklin, “substantially likely that the President and other executive and congressional officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of the census statute and constitutional provision. ...” Moreover, in terras of our “standing” precedent, the courts would have ordered a change in a legal status (that of the “report”), and the practical consequence of that change would amount to a significant increase in the likelihood that the plaintiff would obtain relief that directly redresses the injury suffered. We have found standing in similar circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Igartúa v. United States · Igartua v. United States

2. “Harrell has standing to challenge Rules 4-7.1, 4 — 7.2(c)(1)(G), 4 — 7.2(c)(2), 4-7.2(c)(3), and 4-7.5(b)(l)(A) on vagueness grounds, and those vagueness claims are also ripe for review. Further, Harrell’s as-applied challenge to the rejection of his slogan “Don’t settle for less than you deserve” is not moot. However, although Harrell has standing to challenge all nine of the Bar’s identified rules as unconstitutional encroachments on his desired speech, these as-applied claims are not ripe for judicial review, with the single exception of Harrell’s attack on Rule 4-7.5(b)(l)(C), prohibiting background sounds other than instrumental music. Harrell’s constitutional challenge to the Bar’s pre-filing rule, Rule 4.7.7(a)(1)(A), fails because the rule is not a prior restraint and directly serves important state interests in a reasonably well-tailored fashion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 915 F. Supp. 2d 1285 - Harrell v. Florida Bar

3. “To determine whether a claim is ripe, we assess both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding judicial review. Co al. for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1315 (11th Cir.2000). The fitness prong is typically concerned with questions of “finality, definiteness, and the extent to which resolution of the challenge depends upon facts that may not yet be sufficiently developed. ” Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 535 (1st Cir.1995). The hardship prong asks about the costs to the complaining party of delaying review until conditions for deciding the controversy are ideal. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 124 F. Supp. 3d 1254 - Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board