Heffner v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
745 F.3d 56 · 2014
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Roe v. Wade · United States v. Salerno · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Troxel v. Granville · United States v. Lopez
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party asserting a facial challenge 'must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [an act] would be valid.' " Heffner v. Murphy , 745 F.3d 56 , 65 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mitchell , 652 F.3d 387 , 405 (3d Cir. 2011) ). "This is a particularly demanding standard and is the 'most difficult challenge to mount successfully.' " Id. (quoting United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739 , 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095 , 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ). "By contrast, '[a]n as-applied attack ... does not contend that a law is unconstitutional as written but that its application to a particular person under particular circumstances deprived that person of a constitutional right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, there must be -a substantial. government interest that-informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made.... Second, the war-rantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme .... Finally, the statute’s inspection program ... must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“dormant Commerce Clause inquiry only considers whether the imposition of the limitation falls equally upon in-state and out-of-state [residents]; if so, there is clearly no discrimination in favor of Pennsylvania [residents],”
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.