Johnson v. Wing’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.3d 611 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2014
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 407 (§ 207 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Washington v. Davis · Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney · Drye v. United States · Stuart v. American Cyanamid Company · Orange Lake Associates, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he legislative recognition of adverse impact does not suffice to imply such a purpose; the requirement of purposeful discrimination means that equal protection is not violated unless the [challenged provision] was enacted not `in spite of' its adverse effect on the [identifiable group] but rather because it would have that effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Collier v. Barnhart
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.