Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 F.3d 167 - Anderson v. Conboy

Anderson v. Conboy’s Empirical Analysis

156 F.3d 167 · 1998

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Lee Evans v. The City of Houston (2001), Oden v. Oktibbeha County (2001)

12 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

4301998200020102020decided

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 Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union · Screws v. United States · Jett v. Dallas Independent School District

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

  1. “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts ... and to the full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or religion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is established that [§ ] 1981 prohibits discrimination based on race in the making and enforcement of contracts and extends to private as well as state actors in that regard. The -prohibition against racial discrimination encompasses discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It is.also settled that [§ ] 1981 does not prohibit discrimination. on the basis of gender or religion, national origin, or age.”
    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.