Lopez v. Candaele’s Empirical Analysis
630 F.3d 775 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from California Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Steffel v. Thompson
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrat[ing] a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]onstitutional challenges based on the First Amendment present unique standing considerations,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we have considered whether pre-enforcement plaintiffs have failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the government will enforce the challenged law against them. Second, we have considered whether the plaintiffs have failed to establish, with some degree of concrete detail, that they intend to violate the challenged law. We have also considered a third factor, whether the challenged law is inapplicable to the plaintiffs, either by its terms or as interpreted by the government.”
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.