2014 Term SCOTUS Networks

This collection of 2014 Term Supreme Court citation networks was created with a free online tool available on CourtListener. Every case decided by the Court in its 2014 Term is in the table below with links to CourtListener network visualizations and SCOTUSBlog entries. You can sort table data by column values including network age, number of network cases, and degree of dissent. Read more about our terminology and method below. This collection is part of the SCOTUS Map Library developed by the Supreme Court Mapping Project.

Network Terminology ~ Method ~ 2014 Term Statistics ~ Collaborate

2014 Term Network Data

2014 Term Case (link to CourtListener Visualization)	Decided	Law at Issue (link to SCOTUSBlog)	Network Anchor	Decided	Network Age	3D cases	3D DOD	2D cases	2D DOD
Heien v. North Carolina	2014-12-15	4A - Mistake	Brinegar	1949-10-10	65.22	61	0.6	11	0.52
Holt v. Hobbs	2015-01-20	RLUIPA- Beard	Thomas	1981-04-06	33.81	22	0.36	5	0.3
Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens	2014-12-15	Removal-28 USC 1446	Mt Healthy	1977-01-11	37.95	4	0.56	2	0.5
Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk	2014-12-09	FLSA- Security	Steiner	1956-01-30	58.9	5	0.25	3	0
Warger v. Shauers	2014-12-09	FRE-606(b)	Tanner	1987-01-22	27.9	2	0.5	2	0.5
Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado	2015-02-24	State Water Compact	TX v. NM	1983-06-17	31.71	11	0.41	6	0.38
NC Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC	2015-02-25	Anti-trust- Parker immunity	Boulder	1982-01-13	33.14	16	0.59	7	0.5
Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.	2015-01-20	Patent -FRCP 52(a)(6)	Pullman-Standard	1982-04-27	32.76	17	0.35	7	0.32
Jennings v. Stephens	2015-01-14	Federal Habeas - Appeal	Dowd	1951-01-02	64.08	11	0.5	3	0.5
Zivotofsky v. Kerry	2015-06-08	President Power	Youngstown	1952-06-02	63.06	47	0.51	17	0.66
Omnicare v. Laborers Dist. Council	2015-03-24	Securities Act	Huddleston	1983-01-24	32.18	7	0.29	2	0
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Maclean	2015-01-21	Whistleblower	Brown	1979-04-18	35.79	7	0.25	2	0.25
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans	2015-01-13	Truth in Lending	Beach	1998-04-22	16.74	2	0	2	0
Yates v. United States	2015-02-25	Crim Liability: Sarbanes Oxley	Deal	1993-05-17	21.79	5	0.7	3	0.92
Johnson v. United States	2015-06-26	Armed Career Criminal Act	Taylor	1990-05-29	25.09	15	0.53	7	0.46
Ala. Leg. Black Caucus v. Alabama	2015-03-25	Gerrymandering - VRA	Shaw	1993-01-28	22.17	20	0.79	14	0.79
McFadden v. United States	2015-06-18	Controlled Substance Act	Flores-Figueroa	2009-05-04	6.13	2	0	2	0
Kingsley v. Hendrickson	2015-06-22	14A - Pretrial Force	Bell	1979-05-04	36.16	26	0.56	11	0.68
Horne v. Department of Agriculture	2015-06-22	Takings Clause	Penn Central	1978-10-02	36.75	39	0.43	18	0.39
Obergefell v. Hodges	2015-06-26	14A - Same Sex Marriage	Loving	1967-06-12	48.07	68	0.59	15	0.65
Glossip v. Gross	2015-06-29	8A - Death Penalty	Helling	1993-06-18	22.04	7	0.68	4	0.5
Mata v. Lynch	2015-06-15	BIA-Appellate Jurisdiction	Kucana	2010-01-20	5.4	2	0.13	2	0.13
Woods v. Donald	2015-03-30	6A- Fed Habeas	Cronic	1984-05-14	30.9	14	0.39	4	0.13
Grady v. North Carolina	2015-03-30	4A - Search	Camara	1967-06-05	47.85	20	0.56	5	0.45
Taylor v. Barkes	2015-06-01	Section 1983-Qualified Immunity	Farmer	1994-01-06	21.41	2	0	2	0
Ala. Dep't of Revenue v. CSX Transp	2015-03-04	4-R Act	Guardians Assn	1983-07-01	31.7	9	0.61	2	0.75
Ala. Democratic Conf. v. Alabama	2015-03-25	Gerrymandering - VRA	Shaw	1993-01-28	22.17	15	0.53	7	0.46
Comptroller v. Wynne	2015-05-18	Dormant Commerce Clause	Central Greyhound	1948-06-14	66.97	43	0.58	6	0.5
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n	2015-03-09	Administrative Procedure Act	Vermont Yankee	1978-04-03	36.96	37	0.32	5	0.2
Elonis v. United States	2015-06-01	Threat - 18 USC 874	Morissette	1952-01-07	63.44	36	0.47	12	0.46
Bnb Hardware v. Hargis Indus.	2015-03-24	Lanham Act - TTAB Preclusion	Utah Contr.	1966-01-06	49.24	7	0.32	6	0.38
Whitfield v. United States	2015-01-13	18 USC 2113(e)	Carter	2000-01-12	15.01	2	0.5	2	0.5
Young v. UPS	2015-03-25	Pregancy Discrimination Act	McDonnell Douglas	1973-05-14	41.89	38	0.47	12	0.33
Hana Financial v. Hana Bank	2015-01-21	Trademark	TSC	1976-06-14	38.63	3	0	3	0
Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl	2015-03-03	Tax Injunction Act	Tully	1976-11-09	38.34	8	0.5	5	0.5
DOT v. Ass'n of Am. R.R.	2015-03-09	Passenger Rail Improvement Act	LeBron	1995-02-21	20.06	4	0.56	4	0.56
Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp.	2015-01-21	Final Decision 1291 Appeals	Cohen	1949-06-20	65.63	25	0.25	5	0.15
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong	2015-04-22	FTCA Equitable Tolling	Irwin	1990-12-03	24.4	15	0.32	5	0.55
Kellogg Brown Root v. Carter	2015-05-26	Wartime SOL - FCA	Smith	1952-01-07	63.42	3	0.58	3	0.58
Mellouli v. Lynch	2015-06-01	Deportable Drug Offense	NY BCBS	1995-04-26	20.11	3	0.17	3	0.17
Reed v. Town of Gilbert	2015-06-18	1A - Sign Regulation	Consolidated	1980-06-20	35.02	49	0.61	14	0.52
Wellness International v. Sharif	2015-05-26	Non-Article III Tribunals	Schor	1986-07-07	28.9	18	0.53	10	0.6
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child	2015-03-31	Medicaid Act	Sandoval	2001-04-24	13.94	7	0.89	3	0.83
TX Housing v. Inclusive Communities	2015-06-25	Disparate Impact	Griggs	1971-03-08	44.33	13	0.6	13	0.6
Rodriguez v. United States	2015-04-21	4A - Traffic Stop Dog Sniff	Terry	1968-06-10	46.89	tb	tb	21	0.49
Kerry v. Din	2015-06-15	14A - Procedural Due Process	Goldberg	1970-03-23	45.26	67	0.57	11	0.57
Coleman v. Tollefson	2015-05-18	In Forma Pauperis	Adkins	1948-11-22	66.53	4	0	3	0
Henderson v. United States	2015-05-18	Firearm Transfers	Small	2005-04-26	10.07	2	0.38	2	0.38
Tibble v. Edison International	2015-05-18	ERISA	Central States	1985-06-19	29.93	2	0	2	0
EEOC v. Abercrombie Fitch	2015-06-01	Title VII Religion	Griggs	1971-03-08	44.26	28	0.41	6	0.42
Baker Botts v. Asarco	2015-06-15	Bankruptcy Court Fees	Alyeska	1975-05-12	40.12	21	0.57	7	0.57
Ohio v. Clark	2015-06-18	6A - Confrontation Clause	Roberts	1980-06-25	35	18	0.53	8	0.36
City of Los Angeles v. Patel	2015-06-22	4A - Pre-compliance warrants	See	1967-06-05	48.08	37	0.6	11	0.61
Davis v. Ayala	2015-06-18	Federal Habeas-Batson Error	Chapman	1967-03-27	48.26	55	0.55	7	0.71
King v. Burwell	2015-06-25	Affordable Care Act	Brown & Williamson	2000-03-21	15.27	5	0.6	5	0.6
Mach Mining v. EEOC	2015-04-29	Judicial Review EEOC	Dunlop	1975-06-02	39.93	11	0.27	5	0.05
Oneok v. Learjet	2015-04-21	Natural Gas Act	Northern Nat.	1963-02-18	52.21	10	0.35	5	0.25
Williams Yulee v. Florida Bar	2015-04-29	1A - Judge Candidate Speech	Eu	1989-02-22	26.2	30	0.58	8	0.69
T Mobile South V.city of Roswell	2015-01-14	Telecommunications Act	Motor Vehicle	1983-06-24	31.58	11	0.36	4	0.5
Christeson v. Roper	2015-01-20	Federal Habeas-Counsel Substitution	Holloway	1978-04-03	36.82	5	0.45	2	0.63
Walker v. Sons of Confed Veterans	2015-06-18	1A - Government Speech	Perry Ed Assn	1983-02-23	32.34	33	0.57	9	0.69
City of San Francisco v. Sheehan	2015-05-18	Section 1983-Qualified Immunity	Harlow	1982-06-24	32.92	18	0.46	3	0.08
Bank of America v. Caulkett	2015-06-01	Bankruptcy Code	Dewsnup	1992-01-15	23.39	4	0.19	4	0.19
Michigan v. EPA	2015-06-29	Clean Air Act	Chevron	1984-06-25	31.03	65	0.46	7	0.43
Brumfield v. Cain	2015-06-18	8A - Death Penalty	Ford Wainwright	1986-06-26	29	18	0.76	5	0.95
Commil USA v. Cisco Systems	2015-05-26	Patent Infringement Defenses	Roper	1980-03-19	35.21	5	0.35	3	0.33
Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises	2015-06-22	Patents	Brulotte	1964-11-16	50.63	6	0.33	4	0.5
Harris v. Viegelahn	2015-05-18	Bankruptcy Code	Marrama	2007-02-21	8.24	2	0.5	2	0.5
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank	2015-05-04	Bankruptcy Final Decision	Firestone	1981-01-13	34.33	13	0.1	4	0
AZ Legis. v. Redistricting Comm'n	2015-06-29	Elections Clause	Powell	1969-06-16	46.07	44	0.58	6	0.58
M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett	2015-01-26	ERISA - Contract	Textile Workers	1957-06-03	57.69	15	0.33	3	0.42

2014 Term Statistics

• Number of cases in 2014 Term: 71. This comes from the list of 2014 Term cases comes from the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth).
• Average age of network:36.26 years. Median age of network:35 years.
• Average number of 3D cases:18.51. Median number of 3D cases:13.
• Average number of 2D cases:6.1. Median number of 2D cases:5.
• Average 3D Degree of Dissent:0.4111. Median 3D Degree of Dissent:0.47.
• Average 2D Degree of Dissent:0.4179. Median 2D Degree of Dissent:0.49.

Network Terminology

• Supreme Court citation networks show the citation connections between two Court cases. Every network connects two cases, the 2014 Term Case and the Network Anchor Case.
• The Network Age expresses the amount of time (in years) between the time the Anchor Case was decided and when the 2014 Term Case was decided.
• The "D" in "3D" and "2D" stands for "degree of connection." Since the 2014 Term Case always cites the Network Anchor Case, those cases are 1-degree connected.
• The 2D cases column gives the number of 2-degree connections that exist between the 2014 Term Case and the Network Anchor Case - that is, how many cases exist in the network that are cited by the 2014 Term Case AND in turn cite the Network Anchor. For example, Case X would be a 2D case if the 2014 Term Case cited Case X and Case X in turn cited the Network Anchor Case. Please note that the 2D case number includes the two 1D cases (2014 Term Case + Network Anchor).
• The 3D cases column gives the number of 3-degree connections that exist between the 2014 Term Case and the Network Anchor Case. 3D cases are those that are cited by a 2D case AND in turn cite the Network Anchor. Thus, Case Y would be a 3D case if Case X above Cited Y, which in turn cited the Network Anchor Case. Please note that the 3D case number includes the all the 2D+1D cases.
• DOD stands for "Degree of Dissent". The DOD of an individual case is calculated based on its vote for outcome, as specified by the Supreme Court Database (Spaeth). Since a 5-4 decision is the maximum amount of dissent possible in a SCOTUS case, it has a DOD of 1.0. Conversely, a 9-0 case has a DOD of 0. This means that an 8-1 decision has a 0.25 DOD, a 7-2 has a 0.50 DOD, and a 6-3 has a 0.75 DOD. To calculate DOD, the number of dissents is multiplied by 0.25 (thus a 6-2 case would still have a 0.50 DOD).
• 2D DOD is the average DOD for all the 2D cases.
• 3D DOD is the average DOD for all the 3D cases.
• tb stands for "too big" and appears when a 3D network contains more than 70 cases. See Method below for further explanation.
• RETURN TO TOP

Method

Each network was created by the researcher using the free tool on CourtListener. Choice of the Network Anchor Case was based on a reading of the opinion and relevant SCOTUSBlog entry. The textual justification for the Network Anchor Case choice is provided in the visualization's "Description" field. Once an Anchor Case is chosen, the citation networks are generated automatically by the software.

Limitations. Pleast note that the tool does not allow for citation networks with more than 70 cases in them. If a 3D network has more than 70 cases, the tool will return the 2D network only (in the table, "tb" will appear in the 3D column). Finally,since citations between cases are all parsed by computer, the tool does experience occasional data errors. The most common error is for the parser to fail to recognize non-standard cites to recent cases.

Contact

This collection of 2014 Term cases was created as part of the Supreme Court Mapping Project. We welcome feedback and will link networks you create on CourtListener to visualizations presented in this table. Reach us by email.

RETURN TO TOP