Bell v. Keating’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “An Article III court enjoys jurisdiction over a case only if the plaintiff demonstrates that he suffered an injury in fact, the defendant’s actions caused the injury, and the remedy he seeks would redress his injury. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 , 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); see also [American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v.] Alvarez, 679 F.3d [583,] 590-91 [ (7th Cir.2012) ]. When the plaintiff applies for prospective relief against a harm not yet suffered — or one he believes he will suffer again — he must establish that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct[,] and [that] the injury or threat of injury [is] both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Otherwise, he fails to allege an actual case or controversy before the court. See U.S. CONST, art. III, § 2, cl. 1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 912 F. Supp. 2d 735 - Korte v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

2. “Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harman v. City of Santa Cruz

3. “As facial failings, overbreadth and vagueness render a law- totally invalid. Where, however, constitutional over- breadth or vagueness may be cured, “partial, rather than facial,, invalidation is the required course, such that a statute may...be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. Bartholomew County Court Services Department