Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 569 - Allen v. Attorney General of Maine

Allen v. Attorney General of Maine’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 569 · 1996

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
3
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Lambert v. Blackwell (1997), Herbert v. Billy (1998)

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

1901996200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Fay v. Noia · United States v. Salerno · Brown v. Ohio · United States v. Halper · Soberon v. United States

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he law ... should not require litigants to engage in empty gestures”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[C]ourts must examine ‘the totality of the circumstances, including the source of the authority under which the [civil sanction] is imposable, the goals underpinning the authorizing statute, the order itself, the purposes it serves, and the circumstances attendant to its promulgation.’ If this holistic examination indicates that the sanction is better characterized as remedial rather than punitive, it will not be deemed to constitute punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'represents a reasonable effort to protect the public from motorists who have demonstrated a dangerous propensity to drink before they drive.' " It then continued: 23 The safety concerns underlying federal aviation laws, no less than those which give rise to state motor vehicle laws, strongly suggest that "[t]he sanction [of certificate or license revocation] therefore is principally in service to a remedial goal.”
    2 later decisions 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.