2015 Term SCOTUS Networks

This collection of 2015 Term Supreme Court citation networks was created with a free online tool available on CourtListener. Since the 2015 Term is ongoing, this table is a work in progress. Cases decided by the Court in its 2015 Term are 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. To learn more about doctrinal mapping, visit the SCOTUS Mapping Project homepage. Read more about the terminology and method used in this collection below. (For a complete collection of 2014 Term Cases, click here).

Network Terminology ~ Method ~ Collaborate

2015 Term Network Data

2015 Term Case (link to Visualization)	Decided	Law at Issue (link to SCOTUSBlog)	Network Anchor	Decided	Network Age	3D cases	3D DOD	2D cases	2D DOD
Maryland v. Kulbicki	2015-10-05	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Strickland	1984-05-14	31.39	16	0.34	4	0.35
Mullenix v. Luna	2015-11-09	Qualified Immunity	Harlow	1982-06-24	33.38	20	0.44	7	0.36
OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs	2015-12-01	Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act	Nelson	1993-03-23	22.69	2	0.38	2	0.38
Shapiro v. McManus	2015-12-08	Three Judge Panel (28 U.S.C. 2284)	Goosby	1973-01-17	42.89	4	0.19	3	0.25
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia	2015-12-14	Federal Arbitration Act	Perry	1987-06-15	28.50	16	0.48	11	0.48
White v. Wheeler	2015-12-14	6A - Juror Exclusion	Witherspoon	1968-06-03	47.53	18	0.57	4	0.56
Bruce v. Samuels	2016-01-12	Prison Litigation Reform Act + IFP	Woodford	2006-06-22	9.56	4	0.25	3	0.25
Hurst v. Florida	2016-01-12	Jury Death Sentences	Apprendi	2000-06-26	15.55	8	0.69	6	0.79
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez	2016-01-20	Mootness + FRCP 68	Preiser	1975-06-25	40.57	21	0.35	9	0.36
Kansas v. Carr	2016-01-20	Death Penalty Mitigation Instructions	Boyde	1990-04-23	25.75	11	0.84	5	0.80
Montanile v. Board of Trustees	2016-01-20	ERISA and Equitable Relief	Mertens	1993-06-01	22.64	7	0.57	5	0.65
Amgen Inc. v. Harris	2016-01-25	ESOP Fiduciary Duty	Fifth Third	2014-06-25	1.59	2	0.0	2	0.0
FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.	2016-01-25	Wholesale Electricity - FPA	Louisiana Power	1972-06-07	43.63	5	0.35	3	0.42
James v. Boise	2016-01-25	SCOTUS Supremacy	Hughes	1980-11-10	35.21	2	0.13	2	0.13
Menominee Tribe v. United States	2016-01-25	Federal Equitable Tolling	Pace	2005-04-27	10.75	5	0.60	4	0.63
Montgomery v. Louisiana	2016-01-25	Retroactivity (Miller)	Teague	1989-04-17	26.78	42	0.68	13	0.73
Musacchio v. United States	2016-01-25	Sufficiency Review	Jackson	1979-10-01	36.32	2	0.0	2	0.0
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.	2016-03-01	ERISA Preemption	Met Life	1985-06-03	30.75	23	0.39	9	0.28
Lockhart v. United States	2016-03-01	Child Pornography Sentencing	Mandel Bros	1959-05-04	56.83	7	0.42	5	0.38
Americold Realty v. ConAgra Foods	2016-03-07	Diversity Jurisdiction	Steelworkers	1965-11-22	50.29	4	0.31	4	0.31
Wearry v. Cain	2016-03-07	Disclosure of Evidence (Brady)	Brady	1963-05-13	52.82	20	0.61	8	0.53
V.L. v. E.L.	2016-03-07	Full Faith and Credit	Underwriters	1982-03-24	33.96	5	0.35	2	0.0
Caetano v. Mass	2016-03-21	2A (Second Amendment)	Heller	2008-06-26	7.73	3	0.67	3	0.67
Duncan v. Owens	2016-01-20	Federal Habeas	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
Montana v. Wyoming	2016-03-21	State water dispute	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
Hawkins v. Community Bank	2016-03-22	ECOA	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
Sturgeon v. Frost	2016-03-22	ANILCA	Sea-Land	2012-03-20	4.01	2	0.13	2	0.13
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo	2016-03-22	Class Action Certification	Amchem	1997-06-25	18.74	5	0.65	4	0.69
Nebraska v. Parker	2016-03-22	Reservation Boundaries	Seymour	1962-01-15	54.18	14	0.27	8	0.25
Friedrichs v. CA Teachers Assn.	2016-03-29	1A - Agency Shop Fees	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
Luis v. United States	2016-03-30	6A - Pretrial Asset Freeze	Monsanto	1989-06-22	26.77	7	0.89	5	0.90
Evenwel v. Abbott	2016-04-04	One Person, One Vote	Wesberry	1964-02-17	52.13	31	0.60	12	0.54
Nichols v. United States	2016-04-04	Sex Offender Registration	Doe	2003-03-05	13.08	5	0.50	4	0.50
Woods v. Etherton	2016-04-04	AEDPA Deference	Yarborough	2004-06-01	11.84	6	0.29	2	0.44
Welch v. United States	2016-04-18	Retroactivity (Johnson)	Teague	1989-04-17	27	44	0.62	13	0.68
Hughes v. Talen Energy	2016-04-19	FERC Preemption	Nantahala	1986-06-17	29.84	5	0.31	5	0.31
Franchise Tax v. Hyatt	2016-04-19	Full Faith and Credit	Carroll	1955-06-06	60.87	6	0.42	5	0.50
Molina-Martinez v. US	2016-04-20	Harmless Error (Fed Sentencing)	Olano	1993-04-26	22.99	14	0.36	6	0.38
Bank Markazi v. Peterson	2016-04-20	Separation of Powers	Robertson	1992-03-25	24.07	5	0.60	5	0.50
Harris v. AZ Independent Redistricting	2016-04-20	Equal Protection (Voting)	Brown	1983-06-22	32.83	9	0.72	4	0.75
Heffernan v. City of Patterson	2016-04-26	1A - Mistaken Retaliation	Letter Carriers	1973-06-25	42.84	21	0.69	7	0.75
Ocasio v. United States	2016-05-02	Hobbs Act Conspiracy	Evans	1992-05-26	23.93	2	0.75	2	0.75
Sheriff v. Gillie	2016-05-16	Fair Debt Collection Practices Act	Gregory	1991-06-20	24.91	4	0.31	3	0.25
Spokeo v. Robins	2016-05-16	Article III Standing	Lujan	1992-06-12	23.93	28	0.46	13	0.54
Husky Int'l Electronics v. Ritz	2016-05-16	Bankruptcy Fraud	Field	1995-11-28	20.46	4	0.31	4	0.31
Merrill Lynch et al v. Manning	2016-05-16	SEA Jursidiction	Pan American	1961-05-29	54.97	7	0.14	3	0.0
Zubik v. Burwell	2016-05-16	RFRA Punt	Kiyemba	2010-03-01	6.21	2	0.0	2	0.0
Kernan v. Hinojasa	2016-05-16	AEDPA Deference	Ylst	1991-06-24	24.89	2	0.75	2	0.75
CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC	2016-05-19	Title VII - Attorney Fees	Christiansburg	1978-01-23	38.32	12	0.33	5	0.40
Betterman v. Montana	2016-05-19	6A - Speedy Trial	Marion	1971-12-20	44.41	16	0.30	6	0.33
Luna Torres v. Lynch	2016-05-19	INA - Aggravated Delony	Feola	1975-03-19	41.17	7	0.57	4	0.69
Foster v. Chatman	2016-05-23	Equal Protection (Batson)	Batson	1986-04-30	30.06	24	0.63	8	0.53
Wittman v. Personhuballah	2016-05-23	Article III Standing (Congress)	Diamond	1986-04-30	30.06	11	0.32	5	0.20
Green v. Brennan	2016-05-23	Title VII - Limitations Period	Ricks	1980-12-15	35.44	11	0.70	7	0.68
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes	2016-05-31	APA and Clean Water Act	Frozen Food	1956-04-23	60.10	7	0.21	3	0.33
Johnson v. Lee	2016-05-31	Federal Habeas - State Default	Coleman	1991-09-13	24.71	12	0.38	9	0.36
Lynch v. Arizona	2016-05-31	Due Process - Parole Ineligibilty (Simmons)	Simmons	1994-06-07	21.96	7	0.75	5	0.70
Simmons v. Himmelreich	2016-06-06	Federal Tort Claims Act	Smith	1991-03-20	25.22	2	0.13	2	0.13
Ross v. Blake	2016-06-06	Prison Litigation Reform Act - Exhaustion	Booth	1991-05-29	15.02	5	0.15	4	0.19
Williams v. Pennsylvania	2016-06-09	Due Process - Judicial Bias	Murchison	1955-05-16	61.07	24	0.45	9	0.39
Dietz v. Bouldin	2016-06-09	Inherent Power - Jury Recall	Link	1962-06-25	53.96	9	0.50	5	0.55
Purto Rico v. Sanchez Valle	2016-06-09	Double Jeopardy - Sovereignty	Waller	1970-04-06	48.18	7	0.36	4	0.25
Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics	2016-06-13	Patents - Enhanced Damages	Fogerty	1994-03-01	22.29	6	0.0	4	0.0
Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust	2016-06-13	Bankruptcy - Preemption	Ron Pair	1989-02-22	27.31	7	0.54	2	.75
United States v. Bryant	2016-06-13	6A - Unrepresented Predicate Offenses	Burgett	1967-11-13	48.58	12	0.63	6	0.50
Kingdomware Technoloiges v. United States	2016-06-16	Veterans Benefits Act	Lexecon	1998-03-03	18.29	2	0.0	2	0.0
Universal Health Services v. United States	2016-06-16	False Claims Act	Neder	1999-06-10	18.29	4	0.19	2	0.38
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley and Sons	2016-06-16	Copyright Act Fees	Fogerty	1994-03-01	22.29	5	0.0	4	0.0
Encinco Motorcars v. Navarro	2016-06-20	Fair Labor Standards Act	State Farm	1983-06-24	32.99	17	0.47	5	0.45
Utah v. Strieff	2016-06-20	4A - Exclusionary Rule	Brown	1975-06-26	40.99	33	0.71	10	0.72
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee	2016-06-20	Patents - Inter Partes Review	Block	1984-06-04	32.04	12	0.44	6	0.38
Taylor v. United States	2016-06-20	Hobbs Act - Commerce Limits	Lopez	1995-04-26	21.15	11	0.55	6	0.58
RJR Nabisco v. European Community	2016-06-20	RICO - Extraterritoriality	Benz	1957-04-08	59.20	13	0.40	5	0.55
Fisher v. University of Texas	2016-06-23	Equal Protection - Affirmative Action	Bakke	1978-06-28	37.99	31	0.74	11	0.86
Birchfield v. North Dakota	2016-06-23	4A - Body Searches	Skinner	1989-03-21	27.26	19	0.57	6	0.71
Mathis v. United States	2016-06-23	ACCA - Past State Convictions	Taylor	1990-05-29	26.07	14	0.39	9	0.42
Dollar General v. Mississippi Band	2016-06-23	Indian Tribal Jurisdiction	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
Unites States v. Texas	2016-06-23	APA + Take Care Clause	No precedent cited			0	n/a	0	n/a
McDonnell v. United States	2016-06-27	Honest Services Fraud	Evans	1992-05-26	24.09	2	0.38	2	0.38
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt	2016-06-27	Abortion Restrictions	Casey	1992-06-29	23.99	17	0.54	9	0.64
Voisine v. United States	2016-06-27	Gun Control - 18 USC 922	Hayes	2009-02-24	7.34	5	0.25	3	0.33

Table Notes

This table contains the following cases in which no SCOTUS precedent was cited at all. Therefore, there are no citation networks available for those cases.

• Duncan v. Owens. In this federal habeas case, the writ of certoriari was dismissed as improvidently granted.
• Montana v. Wyoming. In this original jurisdiction case regarding State water rights, the Court issued a one-page Order and Judgment without reference to any case law
• Hawkins v. Community Bank. In this Equal Credit Opportunity Act case, the Court was equally divided for the first time since Justice Scalia's death. Judgment below was affirmed in a one-line opinion.
• Friedrichs v. CA Teachers Assn. In this First Amendment case, the Court was equally divided and so Judgment below was affirmed in a one-line opinion. Abooda> was therefore left intact
• Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctow Indians. In this Tribal Jurisdiction case, the Court was equally divided and so Judgment below was affirmed in a one-line opinion.
• United States v. Texas. In this case concerning President Obama's DAPA program, the Court was equally divided and so Judgment below was affirmed in a one-line opinion.

Network Terminology

• Supreme Court citation networks show the citation connections between two Court cases. Every network connects two cases, the 2015 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 2015 Term Case was decided.
• The "D" in "3D" and "2D" stands for "degree of connection." Since the 2015 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 2015 Term Case and the Network Anchor Case - that is, how many cases exist in the network that are cited by the 2015 Term Case AND in turn cite the Network Anchor. For example, Case X would be a 2D case if the 2015 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 (2015 Term Case + Network Anchor).
• The 3D cases column gives the number of 3-degree connections that exist between the 2015 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 SCOTUSBlog's Every. 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. Spaeth codes are not yet available for 2015 Term cases - they should become available in July or August 2016. All maps will be updated then. Please note that the Degree of Dissent (DOD) calculations do not include the 2015 Term case. In addition, the tool only recognizes pre-2015 Term cases for which there is a Supreme Court Database (Spaeth) ID number. Since Spaeth does not cover pre-1946 Term cases, the tool cannot create networks to cases decided before 1946. In addition, the Supreme Court Database has not yet coded current Term cases and so these are displayed in Spaeth view as "unk" (unknown). Finally,since citations between cases are all parsed by computer, the tool does experience occasional data errors.

Contact

This collection of 2015 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