Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 F.3d 1074 - Prince ex rel. Prince v. Jacoby

Prince ex rel. Prince v. Jacoby’s Empirical Analysis

303 F.3d 1074 · 2002

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 2023
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Township School District (2004), Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area School Board (2003)

24 federal appellate · 4 district ·

370200220102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Marks v. United States · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[Tjhere is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect. We think that secondary school students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of their religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.”
    1 later decision 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.