Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 397 U.S. 471 - Dandridge v. Williams

Dandridge v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

7,906
cited by 7,906 later decisions
396
cited 396 times by the Supreme Court
49
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

2,103 federal appellate · 754 district · 2,351 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7,906 later decisions (396 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

2,103 federal appellate · 754 district · 2,351 state decisions — followed in 49 states

3.4k0197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.

Cited together with McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.

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 7,906 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.”
    502 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The prevailing party may, of course, assert in a reviewing court any ground in support of his judgment, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the trial court.”
    38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he starting point of the statutory analysis must be a recognition that the federal law gives each State great latitude in dispensing its available funds.”
    22 later decisions 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.