Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 133 - Winpisinger v. Watson

Winpisinger v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 133 · 1980

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles (1986), United States ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon (1981)

43 federal appellate · 43 district · 2 state decisions

5601980199020002010decided

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 2 U.S.C. § 434 (§ 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 292

Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Elrod v. Burns · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

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

  1. “[t]he endless number of diverse factors potentially contributing to the outcome of ... elections ... forecloses any reliable conclusion that voter support of a candidate is 'fairly traceable' to any particular event.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “because the court would be placed in the position of evaluating every discretionary consideration....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, as voters, contributors and participants in the process of Presidential nomination,”
    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.