Dennis v. Luis’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.2d 628 · 1984
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Chiles v. Thornburgh (1989), Hendrick v. Walters (1993)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
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 12 U.S.C. § 263 (§ 12a of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 48 U.S.C. § 1573 · 48 U.S.C. § 1597 · 48 U.S.C. § 1612 · 5 U.S.C. § 5503
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Flast v. Cohen · William Marbury v. James Madison · Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to the legislators’ allegations, the interest sought to be protected by this action [for declaratory and injunctive relief against the governor] is [the legislators’] unique statutory right to advise the Governor on executive appointments and to confer their approval or disapproval in this regard. Assuming these allegations to be true, we conclude that they allege a personal and legally cognizable interest peculiar to legislators. The interest asserted is simply not a “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance. Since the right to advise and consent has been vested only in members of the legislature, and since only members of the legislature are bringing this action, the allegation that this right has been usurped by the Governor and [the Acting Commissioner of Commerce] are sufficiently personal to constitute an injury in fact, thus satisfying the minimum constitutional requirements of standing. We therefore believe that it is reasonable to hold that the legislators have standing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]hese senators have a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnes US v. Kline · Russell v. P“held that a group of legislators had standing to challenge the appointment by the Governor of the Virgin Islands of an “acting” Commissioner of Commerce without consulting them, where § 16(c) of the Organic Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1597 (c), provided that the appointment of a Commissioner of Commerce was subject to the advice and consent of the Legisla ture. The plaintiffs in Dennis thus alleged that they possessed a specific right under § 16(c) of the Organic Act that the Governor had violated, and they had no clear recourse through the political process.”
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.