Katuria Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Rockey v. Courtesy Motors, Inc. (2001), Jacobus
10 district · 1 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Flast v. Cohen · Steffel v. Thompson · Marks v. United States · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) it can be said with assurance that 'there is no reasonable expectation...' that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`if a challenged law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“True it is that Justice Brennan did not specifically say that “race” could be used to achieve student body diversity in the absence of any societal discrimination, but, then, there was no need for him to do so in light of his view about past societal discrimination. Yet, we can hardly doubt that he would have embraced that somewhat narrower principle if need be, for he thought that it was simply an allotrope of the principle he was propounding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gratz v. Bollinger
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.