Faheem-El v. Klincar’s Empirical Analysis
841 F.2d 712 · 1988
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Roth v. Lutheran General Hospital (1995), Federal Trade Commission v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc. (1988)
42 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the plaintiff has reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy at law or will be irreparably harmed if the injunction does not issue; (3) whether the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may inflict on the defendant; and (4) whether the granting of the preliminary injunction will dis-serve the public interest.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, a court must determine whether the state action infringes upon a fundamental right or discriminates on the basis of a suspect category. If so, the ... action is reviewed under either a strict or intermediate scrutiny standard. ... If no fundamental rights or suspect categories are involved, a court must simply determine whether the differential treatment of similarly situated individuals is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. A party alleging an equal protection challenge involving this standard bears the “heavy burden” of demonstrating that the differences in treatment are to unrelated to legitimate objectives that the only conclusion a court can reach is that the [state’s] actions were irrational.”
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.