Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 FSUPP 906 - Dougall v. Sugarman

Dougall v. Sugarman’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
January 1987
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 8 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Shapiro v. Thompson · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Graham v. Richardson · Cannon 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary not withstanding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The authority to control immigration —to admit or exclude aliens — is vested solely in the Federal Government .. The assertion of an authority to deny aliens the opportunity of earning a livelihood when lawfully admitted to the state would be tantamount to the assertion of the right to deny them entrance and abode, for in ordinary cases they cannot live where they cannot work. And, if such a policy were permissible, the practical result would be that those lawfully admitted to the country under the authority of the acts of Congress, instead of enjoying in a substantial sense and in their full scope the privileges conferred by the admission, would be segregated in such of the states as chose to offer hospitality.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Taken together, Graham and Takahashi sufficiently weaken the value of Crane and Heim as precedents for upholding state laws denying aliens government employment, and, therefore, those cases can be viewed as implicitly overruled and no longer law." [7]”
    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.