Kong v. Scully’s Empirical Analysis
341 F.3d 1132 · 2003
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2024
5 federal appellate · 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 26 U.S.C. § 1402 · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320 (§ 1120 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320C (§ 1151 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395I (§ 1817 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395I (§ 1821 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Udall v. Tallman · Flast v. Cohen · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Lemon v. Kurtzman
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accommodation of a religious minority to let them practice their religion without penalty is a lawful secular purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) 2 In Sherbert, the Court held that the state could not require the plaintiff to abandon her religious objection to working on the Sabbath in order to receive unemployment benefits. 374 U.S. at 401 , 83 S.Ct. 1790 . See also, e.g., Frazee v. Ill. Dep't of Employment Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 832 , 109 S.Ct. 1514 , 103 L.Ed.2d 914 (1989). The Court later applied the same principle to a plaintiff who objected to working on armaments. See Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 , 101 S.Ct. 1425 , 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kong v. Scully“(Op. at 20.) Rather, given the complicated and intricate development of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the analysis is more nuanced, requiring a scalpel, not a broad brush. Indeed, the multiple plurality opinions spawned in modern Establishment Clause cases underscore the delicate distinctions drawn by the Supreme Court. Our own opinion here, consisting of a one-judge opinion, joined by two concurrences, reflects the difficulty in applying the Court's distinctions. Just as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kong v. Scully
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.