Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 F.2d 962 - American Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt

American Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt’s Empirical Analysis

714 F.2d 962 · 1983

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell (1987), Thomas v. Peterson (1985)

48 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

5701983199020002010decided

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

Relies on Yakus v. United States · Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo · Kleppe v. Sierra Club · Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League · California v. Block

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

  1. “... either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tip sharply in his favor.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Alpine thus authorizes the court not only to weigh the relative hardship and harms to the parties, but to examine how the greater public interest may be affected in the unusual case where enjoining government action allegedly in violation of NEPA might actually jeopardize natural resources.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a preliminary injunction is justified when: (1) the moving party has established a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the balance of irreparable harm favors the moving party; and (3) the public interest favors the issuance of an injunction.”
    3 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.