Dhinsa v. Krueger’s Empirical Analysis
917 F.3d 70 · 2019
Citation profile
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1959 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Bousley v. United States · Hill v. United States · Spencer v. Kemna
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An identifiable trifle is enough, the Supreme Court has explained, because standing doctrine's purpose is to distinguish a person with a direct stake in the outcome of a litigation -- even though small -- from a person with a mere interest in the problem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porsch v. LLR, Inc.
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.