State Sullivan v. Lujan S’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 10 district ·

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

1. “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” — -an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, (b) actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e} result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance v. Babbitt · Schutz v. State of Wyoming

2. “'Standing jurisprudence is a highly case-specific endeavor, turning on the precise allegations of the parties seeking relief'.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 90 F. Supp. 2d 1300 - Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Clark · Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan

3. “The redressability prong of Article III standing analysis requires simply that the claimed injury `is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 90 F. Supp. 2d 1300 - Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Clark