Smith v. Reagan’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 195 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Alperin v. Vatican Bank (2005), Aktepe v. USA (1997)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from North Carolina Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 1732
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]he mere fact that the statute was designed to protect [certain individuals] does not require the implication of a private cause of action ... on their behalf....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the delicacies of diplomatic negotiation [and] the inevitable bargaining for the best solution of an international conflict,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or 2. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or 3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or 4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or 5. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or 6.The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
1 later decision 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.