Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 F.3d 1534 - Knight v. State of Alabama

Knight v. State of Alabama’s Empirical Analysis

14 F.3d 1534 · 1994

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Burton v. City of Belle Glade (1999), Lynn Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Cooperative

22 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

2501994200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 7 U.S.C. § 341 (Smith-Lever Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 361A

Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Singleton v. Wulff

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

  1. “[T]he state's burden of proving that such alternatives are impracticable or educationally unsound is a heavy one and 'the circumstances in which a State may maintain a policy or practice traceable to de jure segregation that has segregative effects are narrow.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nce it is determined that a particular policy was originally adopted for discriminatory reasons, [and] ... is `traceable' to the original tainted policy, or is `rooted' or has its `antecedents' in that original policy”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[A] litigant who is aggrieved by [a] judgment or order may appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.