Ciudadanos Unidos de San Juan v. Hidalgo County Grand Jury Commissioners’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.2d 807 · 1980
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Willis v. Zant (1983), American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Inc. v. Finch (1981)
36 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Glasser v. United States · Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · Baker v. Carr · Gerstein v. Pugh
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“completely eliminate[s] the harm of which plaintiffs complained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the threat of future inquiry is palpable,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Both sides agree to the abstract proposition that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot. ... A controversy may remain to be settled in such circumstances .... The defendant is free to return to his old ways. This, together with a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled, militates against a mootness conclusion .... For to say that the case has become moot means that the defendant is entitled to a dismissal as a matter of right .... The courts have rightfully refused to grant defendants such a powerful weapon against public law enforcement. The case may nevertheless be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” The burden is a heavy one. Here the defendants told the court that the [alleged violations] no longer existed and disclaimed any intention to revive them. Such a profession does not serve to make the case moot although it is one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of granting an injunction against the now-discontinued acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.