Philips v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
106 F.3d 1420 · 1997
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Cook v. Gates (2008), Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories (2014)
18 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 654 · 10 U.S.C. § 741 · 10 U.S.C. § 866 · 10 U.S.C. § 867 · 10 U.S.C. § 915 · 10 U.S.C. § 925 · 28 U.S.C. § 1259
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · Parker v. Levy · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe · Stanley v. Georgia
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior; (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Just as the desire to accommodate other citizens’ personal or religious objections to homosexuality did not suffice to uphold Amendment 2, see Romer, --- U.S. at ---, 116 S.Ct. at 1629 , the desire to protect a child from the racial prejudices of others did not provide a legitimate reason for favoring a same-race couple over an interracial couple in awarding custody of a child, see Palmare, 466 U.S. at 433 , 104 S.Ct. at 1882 , and the negative attitudes of property owners did not provide a legitimate justification for allowing rejection of a zoning permit for a home for mentally retarded individuals, see Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 , 105 S.Ct. at 3258-59 , the desire to accommodate the attitudes of heterosexual service members opposed to homosexuality does not provide a legitimate reason for excluding gay men and lesbians from the military.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. ‘Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to the hypothetical effects of private ... prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held.’”
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.