Indianapolis Minority Contractors Ass'n v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate ·

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

1. “(1) a conspiracy; (2) a purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to his person or property or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 261 F. Supp. 2d 1026 - Neff v. Hmurovich · 109 F. Supp. 2d 935 - McCraven v. City of Chicago

2. “We have traditionally looked at three factors when determining whether a particular statutory provision gives rise to a federal right. First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. [Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 430 , 107 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987) ]. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so “vague and amorphous” that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. [Id. at 431 — 32][, 107 S.Ct. 766 ]. Third, the statute must unambiguously iihpose a binding obligation on the States. In other words, the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory rather than prec-atory terms. [Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 510-11 , 110 S.Ct. 2510 , 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 110 F. Supp. 2d 891 - Cedarhurst Air Charter, Inc. v. Waukesha County

3. “This case illustrates the difference between rhetoric and proof in a court of law.... As seen through the exacting lens of the summary judgment process, the Plaintiffs’ bold but unsupported claims fail. While perhaps persuasive as rhetoric, the strong conclusions of the Plaintiffs ... do not survive the careful scrutiny required in litigation. Word and theories which play well in political discussions and media accounts do not necessarily meet the legal standards appropriately applied to all lawsuits. Because much has been written and filed in this lawsuit, much is being written here to explain its demise, both procedurally and substantively.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Loubser v. United States