Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 F.2d 1248 - Nelsen v. King County

Nelsen v. King County’s Empirical Analysis

895 F.2d 1248 · 1990

Citation profile

107
cited by 107 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc. (2001), Coral Construction Co. v. King County (1991)

36 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions

610199020002010decided

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. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Roe v. Wade · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · O'Shea v. Littleton · Kolender v. Lawson · Rizzo v. Goode

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

  1. “[T]he interest required of a litigant to attain standing is essentially the same as the interest required to maintain a claim under the mootness doctrine.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “upon a chain of speculative contingencies, particularly a chain that includes the violation of an unchallenged law,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the litigant fails to establish standing, he may not 'seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.'”
    3 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.