Perry v. Schwarzenegger’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.3d 1191 · 2011
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · Diamond v. Charles · 18 Cal. 3d 582 - Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore · Karcher v. May
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so." Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 628 F.3d 1191 , 1193 (2011).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.