Doe v. Holcomb’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.3d 971 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Bennett v. Spear · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“especially considering that the Attorney General could not initiate the prosecution himself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[d] not threatened to do anything, and [could] not do anything, to prosecute a violation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Attorney General could assist a local prosecuting attorney in a perjury prosecution”
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.