James v. Lash’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (§ 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Delaware v. New York · Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No 89 Oklahoma County Oklahoma v. L Dowell · Davis v. Runyon · McNeil v. United States · Mackin v. City of Boston
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“means a substantial and very real danger that a violation of rights will follow the termination of the injunction. See James v. Lash, 949 F.Supp. 691, 693 (N.D.Ind.1996) (construing”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“all relief other than compensatory monetary damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tyler v. Murphy
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.