Preston v. Leake’s Empirical Analysis
660 F.3d 726 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 527 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. Salerno · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Washington v. Glucksberg · Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Fox
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any payment made by a lobbyist to a public official, whether a campaign contribution or simply a gift, calls into question the propriety of the relationship, and therefore North Carolina could rationally adjudge that it should ban all payments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schickel v. Dilger“We also conclude that in aiming the ban at only lobbyists, who, experience has taught, are especially susceptible to political corruption, North Carolina closely drew its enactment to serve the state interests it identified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schickel v. Dilger“serv[ed] only as a channeling device, cutting off the avenue of association and expression that is most likely to lead to corruption but allowing numerous other avenues of association and expression”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schickel v. Dilger
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.