Hamm v. City of Rock Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
282 federal appellate · 25 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 562 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Benton v. Maryland (1969), Klopfer v. State of North Carolina (1967)
282 federal appellate · 25 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Ferguson v. Skrupa · Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States · International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Street · Cohens v. Virginia · Katzenbach v. McClung
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 562 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * non-forcible attempts to gain admittance to or to remain in establishments covered by the Act, are immunized from prosecution, * * *.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining * * * prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability * * *»”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Section 201(a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin; and § 201(b) defines establishments as places of public accommodation if their operations affect commerce or segregation by them is supported by state action. Sections 201(b) (2) and (c) place any ‘restaurant * * * principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises’ under the Act ‘if * * * it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves * * * has moved in commerce.’ “Ollie’s Barbecue admits that it is covered by these provisions of the Act. The Government makes no contention that the discrimination at the restau rant was supported by the State of Alabama. There is no claim that interstate travelers frequented the restaurant. The sole question, therefore, narrows down to whether Title II, as applied to a restaurant receiving about $70,000 worth of food which has moved in commerce, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress. * * * ^ i|i S|i i}« # “ * * * The only remaining question * * * is whether the particular restaurant either serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce. }ji j{c i{< :fc “ * * * Insofar as the section of the Act here relevant is concerned, § ”
3 later decisions 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.