Schwier v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 1284 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. (2005), Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted (2016)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1232G (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) · 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 2403 · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Maine v. Thiboutot · Alexander v. Sandoval · Gonzaga University v. Doe
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person acting under color of law shall ... deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number. (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to— (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or (B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Dittman , the Ninth Circuit relied on two cases which involved only section 3 of the Privacy Act. Thus, when the Ninth Circuit quoted Unt v. Aerospace Corp. above, the phrase, "the statute,” referred to section 3 of the Privacy act, not section 7. Unt’s holding had no relevance to the facts of Dittman or to the present case because in Unt, the plaintiff was trying to sue a non-government entity for violations of section 3 of the Privacy Act, which pertains only to federal agencies. In addition, Dittman relied on the Seventh Circuit's holding in Polchowski v. Gorris. [That case] also had no relevance to the facts of Dittman because, again, Polchowski involved enforcement of section 3 of the Privacy Act, rather than section 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.