Townley v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
722 F.3d 1128 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Baker v. Carr · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Linda R. S. v. Richard D.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a clear showing of each element of standing.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[These plaintiffs] fall short, however, in establishing that the relief they seek would redress the injury they argue is caused by § 293.269(2). Plaintiffs say they are harmed because the ballots cast for NOTC are not given legal effect, yet they do not actually ask that, as the remedy for this injury, the Secretary of State be ordered to give legal effect to such ballots. Rather, they demand that the option of casting a ballot for NOTC be entirely removed from the Nevada election system. As a result, if plaintiffs were to prevail in this lawsuit, voters' opposition to named candidates would not be given legal effect, but instead voters would no longer have the opportunity to affirmatively express their opposition at the ballot box at all. The relief plaintiffs seek will therefore decrease their (and other voters') expression of political speech rather than increase it, worsening plaintiffs' injury rather than redressing it.... Because the relief plaintiffs seek would worsen the position of voters who intend to cast ballots for NOTC, rather than redress the injury they assert, this category of plaintiffs lacks standing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree with plaintiffs that the first two standing requirements [injury in fact and causation] are met. In light of their stated intent to cast ballots for NOTC, the injury [these plaintiffs] assert - the harm caused by the Secretary refusing to give legal effect to their ballots - is sufficiently concrete and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
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.