Wolfson v. Brammer’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.3d 1045 · 2010
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the plaintiff has articulated a concrete plan to violate the law in question; (2) whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings; and (3) the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“designed to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and may never occur from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action.”
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.