Koelfgen v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2002 · most notably Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney (1979), D'Amato v. Wisconsin Gas Co. (1985)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The State owes a debt of gratitude to those veterans who served the nation in time of peril. State ex rel. Kangas v. McDonald, 188 Minn. 157 , 246 N.W. 900 (1933). 2. A veteran is likely to possess courage, constancy, habits of obedience and fidelity, which are valuable qualifications for any public office holder. Goodrich v. Mitchell, 68 Kan. 765 , 75 P. 1034 (1904). 3. Veterans should be aided in rehabilitation and relocation because military service has disrupted their nor mal life and employment. Note, 26 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 165 (1966).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““[C]ourts should be reluctant to find a right to be ‘fundamental,’ unless it is clearly set out in the Constitution. By so finding, the Court subjects legislation affecting that right to much closer scrutiny, a situation which invites conflict between the courts and the legislature. This type of conflict should be avoided except when a right which is clearly at the foundation of our system of government is involved. Only then should the legislature’s considered judgment be subject to the ‘compelling state interest’ test. The ‘right to be fairly considered for public employment,’ as the term is used by the plaintiffs, clearly is not such a ‘fundamental right.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“If the qualities have once been acquired, it is reasonably probable that they will continue to characterize the veteran and thus afford the same potential value in promotions as they do in appointments. At least, the legislature could reasonably have taken this position, and since it could, we are powerless to interfere with its decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.