Glassroth v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.3d 1282 · 2003
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably United States v. Crawford (2005), Vision Church, United Methodist v. Village of Long Grove (2006)
37 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Bennett v. Spear · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Malloy v. Hogan
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The clear implication of Chief Justice Moore's argument is that no government official who heads one of the three branches of any state or of the federal government, and takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution, as all of them do, is subject to the order of any court, at least not of any federal court below the Supreme Court. In the regime he champions, each high government official can decide whether the Constitution requires or permits a federal court order and can act accordingly. That, of course, is the same position taken by those southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era. See generally, e.g., Meredith v. Fair, 328 F.2d 586, 589-90 (5th Cir.1962)(en banc)...; Williams v. Wallace, 240 F.Supp. 100 (M.D.Ala.1965)... (Johnson, J.,) ...; cf. United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681 , 84 S.Ct. 984 , 12 L.Ed.2d 23 ... (1964). "Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save this chief justice from having to comply with the court order in this case. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1; id., Art. VI, cl. 2. What a different federal district court judge wrote forty years ago, in connection with the threat of another high state official to defy a federal court order, remains true today: "`In the final analysis, the concept of law and order, the very essence of a republican form of government, embraces the notion that when the judicial ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]f we adopted [the Chief Justice’s] position ... Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A creche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, and federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises.”
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.