Pigford v. Glickman’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 41 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Pigford v. Glickman (1999), Pigford v. Veneman (2002)
4 federal appellate · 41 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
Relies on General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Marisol v. Giuliani · Baby Neal v. Casey · Webster v. United States · Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“program discrimination complaint prbcess at [the Farm Services Agency] lacks integrity, direction, and accountability,” id. at 6, and that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is the Poorman-Douglas Corporation. See Consent Decree at 1(i). Among other responsibilities, the facilitator is required to mail copies of the Notice of Class Certification and Proposed Class Settlement to all known class members within ten days of the Court's preliminary approval of the proposed Consent Decree and to undertake an advertising campaign notifying potential class members of the class certification and proposed class settlement. See id. at 3, 4. 4 An action may appropriately be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]inority farmers have lost significant amounts of land and potential farm income as a result of discrimination by FSA [Farm Services Agency] programs and the programs of its predecessor agencies, ASCS [Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service] and FmHA [Farmers Home Administration]. . . . The process for resolving complaints has failed. Minority and limited-resource customers believe USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints. Appeals are too often delayed and for too long. Favorable decisions are too often reversed.”
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.