Harp Advertising Illinois, Inc. v. Village of Chicago Ridge’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.3d 1290 · 1993
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta (2006), McNamara v. City of Chicago (1998)
23 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Honig v. Doe · Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Challenges to statutes as written, without inquiring into their application, are appropriate when details of implementation are inconsequential (usually because nothing could be done in the course of application to save the law) or when the laws are so overbroad that the risk of improper application leads persons to withdraw from the borderland. Fear of penalty, leading to a reduction in speech, supports the doctrine that a person whose speech lawfully could be regulated may challenge a statute achieving regulation in an improper way, or to an excessive extent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Harp] lacks standing to challenge either the sign code or the zoning code, because it could not put up its sign even if it achieved .total victory in this litigation. Harp’s proposed billboard would measure 20 by 60 feet. Yet village ordinance § 4-5-10-3(A) provides that no sign may have a face exceeding 200 square feet. Harp does not contest the validity of this ordinance; its proposed billboard, six times as large as Chicago Ridge allows, therefore will never appear. This litigation is irrelevant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for all [the Seventh Circuit could] tell, [the plaintiff had] no interest in erecting anything smaller anywhere in the United States, let alone a sign of 199 square feet in Chicago Ridge, Illinois.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.