Gilmore v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““876.05 State employees; oath “All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning and all candidates for public office, are hereby required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form: “I,...... a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of..........and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am not a member of the Communist Party; that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party; that I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence; that I am not a member of any organization or party which believes in or teaches, directly or indirectly, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of Florida by force or violence. “And said oath shall be filed with the records of the governing official or employing governmental agency prior to the approval of any voucher for the payment of salary, expenses, or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Connell v. Higginbotham

2. “An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baughman v. Freienmuth

3. “Whether Article 6252-7 applies to * * * [the teacher] as written is of no concern to us. We look only to the effect of the action of state officers applying a state statute under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 . An allegation that the effect is violative of the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon a three judge court. Gilmore v. James, 274 F.Supp. 75, 83 (N.D.Tex.1967), aff’d 389 U.S. 572 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (Case No. 1, 1968).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 301 F. Supp. 266 - Lazarus v. Faircloth