Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 914 F.2d 1008 - National People's Action v. Village of Wilmette

National People's Action v. Village of Wilmette’s Empirical Analysis

914 F.2d 1008 · 1990

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably John Stephen Rowe Dr Jeffrey Lant v. Michele Shake Greg Hulse Craig Hanks (1999), Joelner v. Village of Washington Park (2004)

14 federal appellate · 3 district ·

250199020002010decided

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 Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent

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

  1. “[T]he district court must consider a number of factors in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction: 'Before a preliminary injunction will issue, the movant must show, as a threshold matter, that: (1) they have no adequate remedy at law; (2) they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; and (3) they have some likelihood of success on the merits in the sense that their”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a court of appeals considers a preliminary injunction order, which should set forth the judge's reasoning under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d), the factual determinations are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and the necessary legal conclusions are given de novo review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he ultimate evaluation and balancing of the equitable factors is a highly discretionary decision and one to which this court must give substantial deference.”
    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.