Ensley Branch Naacp’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Engineering Contractors Association Of South Florida Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County (1997), Chapman v. Gooden (2007)
7 district · 2 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 Hensley v. Eckerhart · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Carnegie v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although Croson requires that a public employer show strong evidence of discrimination when defending an affirmative ac tion plan, the Supreme Court has never required that, before implementing affirmative action, the employer must have already proved that it has discriminated. On the contrary, formal findings of discrimination need neither precede nor accompany the adoption of affirmative action.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Modification may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has legitimate interests to be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[o]ne of the distinguishing features of intermediate scrutiny is that, unlike strict scrutiny, the government interest prong of the inquiry can be satisfied by a showing of societal discrimination in the relevant economic sector.”
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.