Cook v. Colgate University’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 17 · 1993
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Comer v. Cisneros (1994), Fox v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (1994)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Powell v. McCormack · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Weinstein v. Bradford · University of Texas v. Camenisch
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he mootness doctrine ensures that the litigant's interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit, including the pendency of the appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“capable of repetition, yet evading review”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a commonplace that jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to cases and controversies. U.S. Const, art III, § 2, cl. 1. Hence, litigants are required to demonstrate a “personal stake” or “legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of their case. United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 , 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208 , 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 , 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1951 , 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)). While the standing doctrine evaluates this personal stake as of the outset of the litigation, the mootness doctrine ensures that the litigant’s interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit, see Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 396-97 , 100 S.Ct. at 1209 ; Etuk v. Slattery, 936 F.2d 1433, 1441 (2d Cir.1991), including the pendency of the appeal. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 , 110 S.Ct. 1249, 1253 , 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). Accordingly, a case that is “live” at the outset may become moot “when it becomes impossible for the courts, through the exercise of their remedial powers, to do anything to redress the injury.” Alexander v. Yale, 631 F.2d 178, 183 (2d Cir.1980); see Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477 , 110 S.Ct. at 1253 .”
2 later decisions 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.