Stein v. Oshinsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Plaintiffs’ attorney has consistently maintained that all the facts are contained in the complaint and are before the court; he did not indicate in argument that any facts warranting a different decision could be alleged or proved. Under these circumstances, we perceive no reason for not bringing this litigation to an end. See 6 Moore, supra, Para. 56.12, 56.13, 56.27 [2].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 305 F. Supp. 943 - Endicott Trust Company v. United States · Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Richardson

2. ““Nevertheless New York is not bound to allow them unless the Free Exercise Clause or the guarantee of freedom of speech of the First Amendment compels. Neither provision requires a state to permit persons to engage in public prayer in state-owned facilities wherever and whenever they desire. Poulos v. State of New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 405 , 73 S.Ct. 760 , 97 L.Ed. 1105 (1953). It would scarcely be argued that a court had to suffer a trial or an argument to be interrupted any time that spectators — or even witnesses or jurymen — desired to indulge in collective oral prayer. The case of the school children differs from that of spectators — although not from that of witnesses or jurymen — in that, so long as they choose to attend a public school, attendance on their part is compulsory. N.Y. Education Law, Consol. Laws, c. 16, §§ 3201-3229. But ‘[t]he student’s compelled presence in school for five days a week in no way renders the regular religious facilities of the community less accessible to him than they are to others.’ Abington Tp. School District v. Schempp, supra, 374 U.S. at 299 , 83 S.Ct. at 1612 (Concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan). . . . Determination of what is to go on in public schools is primarily for the school authorities. Against the desire of these parents that their children ‘be given an opportunity to acknowledge their dependence and love to Almighty God through a prayer each day in their respective classrooms, the authorities were entitled to wei”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 177 Ind. App. 172 - Lynch v. Indiana State University Board of Trustees

3. ““We likewise cannot sustain defendants’ contention that the complaint did not sufficiently raise a claim of denial of constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and to freedom of speech * * * ****** “[W]e shall assume, arguendo, in plaintiffs’ favor that the Establishment Clause would not prohibit New York from permitting in its public schools prayers such as those here at issue. Nevertheless New York is not bound to allow them unless the Free Exercise Clause or the guarantee of freedom of speech of the First Amendment compels. “Neither provision requires a state to permit persons to engage in public prayer in state-owned facilities where-ever and whenever they desire.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 255 F. Supp. 655 - DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School District 428