Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California’s Empirical Analysis
231 F.3d 572 · 2000
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 14 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Johnson (2001), Pacheco v. Mineta (2006)
64 federal appellate · 14 district · 10 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
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“for its refusal to award costs. On appeal, we determine whether the reasons that the district court has specified are appropriate and whether, considering those reasons, the court abused its discretion in denying costs. 24 . . . . 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) establishes that costs are to be awarded as a matter of course in the ordinary case. Our requirement that a district court give reasons for denying costs is, in essence, a requirement that the court explain why a case is not”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the case “involve[s] issues of substantial public importance,” specifically “educational quality, interracial disparities in economic opportunity, and access to positions of social influence”; (2) there is great economic disparity between Plaintiffs, who are individuals and “small nonprofit educational organizations,” and the State of California; (3) the issues in the case are close and difficult; and (4) Plaintiffs’ case, although unsuccessful, had some merit, as evidenced by the [later] modification of the [employment qualification test] to eliminate “higher order” mathematics questions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.