Kenny v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “declaratory or injunctive relief ... must establish an ongoing or future injury in fact.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abbott v. Pastides · Davison v. Randall

2. “Injury in fact is 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' " Kenny v. Wilson , 885 F.3d 280 , 287 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540 , 1548, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) ). Because " '[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects,' " a plaintiff seeking "declaratory or injunctive relief ... must establish an ongoing or future injury in fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abbott v. Pastides · Davison v. Randall

3. “[T]here is a sufficiently imminent injury in fact if plaintiffs allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder. [I]t is not necessary that [a plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davison v. Randall · Carcaño v. Cooper