Donatelli v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.3d 508 · 1993
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Kahn v. Griffin (2005), Angstadt v. Midd-West School District (2004)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Dandridge v. Williams · Reynolds v. Sims · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · Dunn v. Blumstein
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“challenged classification must be upheld 'if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) where the challenged action or legislation involves a “suspect” classification, i.e. a classification based on race, alien-age, or national origin; and (2) where the challenged action infringes on fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to travel or rights protected by the First Amendment. Strict scrutiny is applied in such cases because classifications that are based on race or that infringe on fundamental constitutional rights, are presumptively invalid and will not often be justified by a legitimate state interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“classification based on race, alienage or national origin, or infringes on a fundamental constitutional right, such as the guarantees of the First Amendment, a court must apply the strict scrutiny standard. Id. A. 11 Appellants contend that the district court should have applied strict scrutiny instead of the rational basis test because the School District's classification interfered with their fundamental constitutional right of association. We disagree. Contrary to Appellants' assertion, they were not”
2 later decisions 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.