Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 663 F.2d 619 - Fernandes v. Limmer

Fernandes v. Limmer’s Empirical Analysis

663 F.2d 619 · 1981

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee (1992)

67 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions

6901981199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Gerstein v. Pugh · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Flast v. Cohen

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

  1. “entitled to fair warning as to what conduct the [Act] seeks to”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t [is] immaterial whether the official who denied a permit acted reasonably, whether a permit could legally have been denied under a narrower statute, or indeed whether the party challenging the measure even applied for a permit, (citation omitted). In other words, in the first amendment area, the Court will invalidate an excessively broad grant of discretion on its face. But if the Court were concerned merely about officials abusing their wide discretion, it need not have chosen this facial approach; it could have struck down the abuses when they arose, (citation omitted). By facially invalidating excessively broad grants of discretion, then, the Court has revealed that the problem is not potential abuses but the very existence of broad, censorial power.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is now generally well established that airport terminals owned and administered by governmental entities are public forums in which efforts to regulate speech or religious activity must comport with First Amendment guarantees.” 663 F.2d at 626 .”
    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.