Byrd v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 2 U.S.C. § 681 (Line Item Veto Act) · 2 U.S.C. § 682 · 2 U.S.C. § 683 · 2 U.S.C. § 684 · 2 U.S.C. § 691 · 31 U.S.C. § 1512
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Buckley v. Valeo · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Mistretta v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“injured' in a constitutional sense whenever an appropriations bill comes up for a vote, whatever the President ultimately does with it . . . . Under the Act the dynamic of lawmaking is fundamentally altered. Compromises and trade-offs by individual lawmakers must take into account the President's item-by-item cancellation power looming over the end product.'' Ibid. 12 The court held that appellees' claim was ripe even though the President had not yet used the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Raines v. Byrd“(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any limited tax benefit.'' 2 U.S.C. §691(a) (1994 ed., Supp. II). It is undisputed that the New York case involves an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“constitutionally mandated process of enacting law”
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.