Leebaert v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he Meyer and Pierce cases, we think, evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program'—-whether it be religious instruction at a private school or instruction in a foreign language. That is, the state does not have the power to “standardize its children” or “foster a homogenous people” by completely foreclosing the opportunity of individuals and groups to choose a different path of education. We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children. We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, “You can’t teach your child German or send him to a parochial school,” than for the parent to say to the state, “You can’t teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me.” The first instance involves the state proscribing parents from educating their children, while the second involves parents prescribing what the state shall teach their children. If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school’s choice of subject matter. We cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on state educational systems, and accordingly find that the rights of parents as described by”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fields v. Palmdale School District · 293 F. Supp. 2d 780 - Hansen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools

2. “fundamental right ... to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foote v. Ludlow School Committee · Skoros v. City of New York

3. “We have no reason to doubt either Leebaert’s sincerity or the depth of his convictions. But because of the comparative breadth of the plaintiffs’ claim in Yoder , we do not think that Leebaert’s free exercise claim is governed by that decision: He has not alleged that his community’s entire way of life is threatened by Corky’s participation in the mandatory health curriculum. Leebaert does not assert that there is an irreconcilable Yoder-like clash between the essence of Leebaert’s religious culture and the mandatory health curriculum that he challenges. Leebaert asserts that the mandatory health curriculum conflicts with his belief that “drugs and tobacco are [not] proper subjects that I want my son’s school to teach” and his view that “sex before marriage is .... something I do not want my sons to be involved in.” Leebaert Aff. dated May 22, 2000, at ¶¶ 5-6. Leebaert’s free exercise claim is [thus] qualitatively distinguishable from that alleged in Yoder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 293 F. Supp. 2d 780 - Hansen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools