Gillis v. United States Department of Health & Human Services’s Empirical Analysis
759 F.2d 565 · 1985
Citation profile
169 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 245 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Lewis v. Bf Goodrich Company (1988), Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equity (1991)
169 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 291
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Cort v. Ash
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 245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nless a litigant can show that an interlocutory order of the district court might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence, and that the order can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal, the general congressional policy against piecemeal review will preclude interlocutory appeal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although there is a theoretical conflict between [plaintiff] members posited by [defendant] it would not seem to be the type that should deprive an association of representational standing. First, the adverse effects to certain members of the relief being sought are both speculative and indirect. Second, once an organization has alleged actual injury to “its members, or any one of them,” it may then argue on behalf of the “public interest.” Virtually any relief involving the expenditure of money that benefits some but not all of an organization’s members potentially means that that money will be unavailable to or in part exacted from the remainder of the membership. By joining an organization dedicated to a particular goal in the public interest, members indicate a willingness to make certain sacrifices productive of that goal. Carried to its logical extreme, evaluation of representational standing in terms of the adverseness of remote interests of discrete members would seriously undermine the ability of individuals through organizations to achieve public interest objectives through the legal system.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'an appeal should not be dismissed because it was technically premature if in fact an appealable judgment or order was rendered below, the appellant clearly manifested his intent to appeal from it and the prevailing party below can show no prejudice resulting from the prematurity of the notice.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.