Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 874 FSUPP 1138 - Limit v. Maleng

Limit v. Maleng’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2012

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

80199420002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Imbler v. Pachtman · First National Bank of Boston v. X Bellotti · Burdick v. Takushi · Burson v. Freeman

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

  1. “The State’s interest in protecting the integrity of the initiative process does not justify the prohibition because the State has failed to demonstrate that it is necessary to burden appellees’ ability to communicate their message in order to meet its concerns. The Attorney General has argued that the petition circulator has the duty to verify the authenticity of signatures on the petition and' that the compensation might provide the circulator with a temptation to disregard that duty. No evidence has been offered to support that speculation, however, and we are not prepared to assume that a professional circu-lator—whose qualifications for similar future assignments may well depend on a reputation for competence and integrity— is any more likely to accept false signa tures than a volunteer who is motivated entirely by an interest in having the proposition placed on the ballot.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “no actual proof of fraud stemming specifically from the payment per signature method of collection,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Prete

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.