Schmidt v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.3d 1064 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 50 U.S.C. § 3004
Relies on County of Los Angeles v. Davis · Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler · Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc. · Confederate Memorial Ass'n v. Hines · World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“which, absent consent or leave of court, was without legal effect”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“never properly amended his complaint before the District Court to assert a [new] claim ..., and [ ] there is no dispute that [his] original, procedurally-focused claim was rendered moot”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baltimore v. Pruitt
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.