Feaster v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 104 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 107 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 113 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 1101 (Civil Service Miscellaneous Amendments) · 5 U.S.C. § 7116 · 5 U.S.C. § 7311
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · District of Columbia v. Carter · Lake Michigan College Federation of Teachers v. Lake Michigan Community College · Shook v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority · Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]mongst political entities the District has a unique status; it is truly sui generis in our governmental structure”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 . U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (granting Congress the power”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A proper exercise of discretion requires the trial court to consider whether the moving party has clearly demonstrated (1) that there is a substantial likelihood he [or she] will prevail on the merits; (2) that he [or she] is in danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (3) that more harm will result to him [or her] from the denial of the injunction than will result to the defendant from its grant; and, in appropriate cases, (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the issuance of the requested order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[sjimilar in certain respects to a state constitution”). 58 . D.C.Code § l-204.35(e). 59 . We consider this a fair characterization of the Council and the BOE’s argument. Although they disclaim an intent to delay the election indefinitely, they also argue that there is no need for this court to determine whether there is a reasonableness limitation on their exercise of discretion. In other words, they seek our acknowledgement of the Council's unbounded discretion to schedule the first Attorney General election. Indeed, they assert”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.