Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 U.S. 207 - Connell v. Higginbotham

Connell v. Higginbotham’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

361
cited by 361 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 34 district · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 361 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), Goss v. Lopez (1975)

45 federal appellate · 34 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 20 states

1750197119801990200020102020decided

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 Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Speiser v. Randall · V The Board of Higher Education of the City of New York

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

  1. “proscribing summary dismissal from public employment without hearing or inquiry required by due process”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The first section of the oath upheld by the District Court, requiring all applicants to pledge to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida, demands no more of Florida public employees than is required of all state and federal officers. U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 3. The validity of this section of the oath would appear settled." [6] "I agree that Florida may require state employees to affirm that they `will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.' Such a forward-looking, promissory oath of constitutional support does not in my view offend the First Amendment's command that the grant or denial of governmental benefits cannot be made to turn on the political viewpoints or affiliations of a would-be beneficiary." [7] "The Court upholds as clearly constitutional the first clause of the oath as it comes to us from the three-judge District Court: `I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida... .' With this ruling I fully agree." [8]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The first section of the oath upheld by the District Court, requiring all applicants to pledge to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida, demands no more of Florida public employees than is required of all state and federal officers. U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 3. The validity of this section of the oath would appear settled.”
    1 later decision 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.