Johnson v. Branch’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 177 · 1966
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably 48 Ill. 2d 580 - Fooden v. Board of Governors (1971), United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education (1966)
98 federal appellate · 15 district · 12 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. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Shelton v. Tucker · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Wieman v. Updegraff
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court must consider only the facts and logic relied upon by the board itself. It is ‘a simple but fundamental rule of administrative law that a reviewing court, in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.’ . . . [T]he district court may not usurp the discretionary power of the school board but must judge the constitutionality of its action on the basis of the facts which were before the Board and on its logic. [Quotations omitted] 364 F.2d at 181 .”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“None of them involved the quality of her classroom work. Instead they covered such matters as being 15 minute late to supervise an evening athletic contest; . . . failure to furnish a written explanation for not attending a P.T.A. meeting; failure to stand at the door of her classroom to supervise pupils. . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the record offers no objectively substantiated facts known to the Board with regard to the plaintiff's civil rights activity which would justify the Board's action as found by the (district) court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grausam v. Murphey
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.