Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 F.3d 263 - Ostergren v. Cuccinelli

Ostergren v. Cuccinelli’s Empirical Analysis

615 F.3d 263 · 2010

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2023

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

15020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 2721 (§ 300002 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)

Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Roth v. United States · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · New York v. Ferber

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

  1. “balanc[ing] the fitness of the issues for judicial decision with the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “district courts have broad discretion when fashioning injunctive relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Nor need we accept appellant's invitation to hold broadly that truthful publication may never be punished consistent with the First Amendment. Our cases have carefully eschewed reaching this ultimate question, mindful that the future may bring scenarios which prudence counsels our not resolving anticipatorily.” (collecting cases)). As the Fourth Circuit recognized:”
    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.