Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 802 F.2d 1539 - Wallace v. Christensen

Wallace v. Christensen’s Empirical Analysis

802 F.2d 1539 · 1986

Citation profile

225
cited by 225 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

152 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 225 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Miller v. Florida (1987), United States v. Mason (1990)

152 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 state decisions

12201986199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 453 · 2 U.S.C. § 21 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973B (§ 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 5 U.S.C. § 3331

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Haines v. Kerner · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Califano v. Sanders

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

  1. “has acted outside its statutory authority or has committed a constitutional violation, but we may not review any decision involving the 'exercise of judgment among a range of possible choices or options.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant, or capricious.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress has specifically rebutted the presumption of reviewability of the Commission's substantive decisions to grant or deny parole, and, therefore, these decisions may not be reviewed even for abuse of discretion.”
    5 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.