Pigford v. Glickman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 45 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ll African American farmers who (1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996; (2) applied to the (USDA) during that time period for participation in a federal farm credit or benefit program and who believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in USDA’s response to that application; and (3) filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997, regarding USDA’s treatment of such farm credit or benefit application.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 856 F. Supp. 2d 1 - In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation · 159 F. Supp. 2d 360 - Green v. Veneman

2. “Forty acres and a mule. The government broke that promise to African American farmers. Over one hundred years later, the USDA broke its promise to Mr. James Beverly. It promised him a loan to build farrowing houses so that he could breed hogs. Because he was African American, he never received that loan. He lost his farm because of the loan that never was. Nothing can completely undo the discrimination of the past or restore lost land or lost opportunities to Mr. Beverly or to all of the other African American farmers whose representatives came before this Court. Historical discrimination cannot be undone. But the Consent Decree represents a significant first step. A first step that has been a long time coming, but a first step of immeasurable value. As Mr. Chestnut put it, “Who really knows the true value, if there is one, for returning a small army of poor black farmers to the business of farming by the year 2000 who otherwise would never make it back? I am not wise enough to put a dollar value on that and I don’t think anybody on this planet is wise enough to reduce that to dollars and cents.” Transcript of Hearing of March 2, 1999 at 171. The Consent Decree is a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the claims brought in this case. It therefore will be approved and entered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 159 F. Supp. 2d 360 - Green v. Veneman · Timothy C. Pigford, et al. v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, the United States Department of Agriculture,

3. “a communication from a class member directly to USDA, or to a member of Congress, the White House, or a state, local or federal official who forwarded the class member's communication to USDA, asserting that USDA had discriminated against the class member on the basis of race in connection with a federal farm credit transaction or benefit application.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 856 F. Supp. 2d 1 - In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation · Timothy C. Pigford, et al. v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, the United States Department of Agriculture,