Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 809 - Kay v. Austin

Kay v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 809 · 1980

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
4
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably St. Thomas-St. John Board of Elections v. Daniel (2007), Ross v. State Board of Elections (2005)

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

1901980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Buckley v. Valeo · Davis v. Passman · Williams v. Rhodes · United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers

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

  1. “The word “advocated” cannot be read in isolation from the complete phrase “advocated to be a potential presidential candidate.” So read, it does not require endorsement by the national news media, but only that the national news media generally recognize that the individual is a potentially viable, but not necessarily successful, candidate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “notices of election, absentee voting material, and registration notices”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “paper ballots, voting machine strips, and punch cards”
    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.