Georgia v. Rachel’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
547 federal appellate · 110 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,434 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Younger v. Harris (1971)
547 federal appellate · 110 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRachel v. Georgia (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 18 U.S.C. § 3772 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Linkletter v. Walker · Strauder v. West Virginia · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · City of Greenwood v. Peacock
Cited together with City of Greenwood v. Peacock · Johnson v. Mississippi · Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. · Hamm v. City of Rock Hill · Strauder v. West Virginia
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 1,434 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * It is not enough to support removal under Sec. 1443(1) to allege or show that the defendant's federal equal civil rights have been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance of trial, that the charges against the defendant are false, or that the defendant is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court. The motives of the officers bringing the charges may be corrupt, but that does not show that the state trial court will find the defendant guilty if he is innocent, or that in any other manner the defendant will be 'denied or cannot enforce in the courts' of the State any right under a federal law providing for equal civil rights.”
16 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.