Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 876 F.2d 308 - McLaughlin v. Pernsley

McLaughlin v. Pernsley’s Empirical Analysis

876 F.2d 308 · 1989

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Jordan, In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation (2005)

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

2501989199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform · Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. · Diamond v. Charles

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

  1. “In order to have standing to appeal a party must be aggrieved by the order of the district court from which it seeks to appeal.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because the preliminary injunction does not affect any legally cognizable interest of CSS, we will dismiss this appeal of CSS for lack of standing.”
    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.