Barrett v. Claycomb’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.3d 315 · 2013
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Salerno · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab · Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that [the] movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits strongly suggests that preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]here a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement,” the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements in the criminal context- do not apply____Rather, “it is necessary to balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.””
1 later decision 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.