Mausolf v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 1295 · 1996
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 19 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala (1998), Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat (2003)
49 federal appellate · 19 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.
Relationships
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida · William Marbury v. James Madison
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the would-be litigant must have suffered an “injury in fact”; that is, an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical....” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 , 112 S.Ct. at 2136 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Second, the would-be litigant must establish a causal connection between the alleged injury and the conduct being challenged. Ibid. Third, he must show that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 561 , 112 S.Ct. at 2137 ; see Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Thomas, 53 F.3d 881, 886 (8th Cir.1995) (standing requires (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a government entity is a party and the case concerns a matter of sovereign interest, the government is presumed adequately to represent the interests of the public ... This pre sumption may be rebutted by a strong showing of inadequate representation, as, for example, by showing that the interest of the would-be intervener cannot be subsumed within the public interest represented by the government entity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“From this `bedrock requirement' flow several doctrines e.g., standing, mootness, ripeness, and political question which `state fundamental limits on federal juridical power in our system of government.'”
2 later decisions 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.