Cole v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 12 district · 24 state decisions

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

1. ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that I will oppose the overthrow of the government of the United States of America or of this Commonwealth by force, violence, or by any illegal or unconstitutional method.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bessard v. California Community Colleges · Socialist Workers Party v. Martin

2. “We have made clear that neither federal nor state government may condition employment on taking oaths that impinge on rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments respectively, as for example those relating to political beliefs. [citations omitted.] Nor may employment be conditioned on an oath that one has not engaged, or will not engage, in protected speech activities such as the following: criticizing institutions of government; discussing political doctrine that approves the overthrow of certain forms of government; and supporting candidates for political office. [citations omitted.] Employment may not be conditioned on an oath denying past, or abjuring future, associational activities within constitutional protection; such protected activities include membership in organizations having illegal purposes unless one knows of the purpose and shares a specific intent to promote the illegal purpose. [citations omitted.] ... And finally, an oath may not be so vague that "`men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application [because such an oath] violates the first essential of due process of law.'" Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, [ 368 U.S. 278, 287 , 82 S.Ct. 275 , [281] 7 L.Ed. 2d 285, 292 (1961).] Concern for vagueness in the oath cases has been especially great because uncertainty as to an oath's meaning may deter individuals from engaging in constitutionally protected activity conceivably within the scope of th”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Amawi v. Pflugerville Indep. Sch. Dist. · 362 F. Supp. 3d 617 - Ark. Times LP v. Waldrip

3. ““We have made it clear that neither federal nor state government may condition employment on taking oaths that impinge on rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments respectively, as for example those relating to political beliefs. *** “Employment may not be conditioned on an oath denying past, or abjuring future, associational activities within constitutional protection; such protected activities include membership in organizations having illegal purposes unless one knows of the purpose and shares a specific intent to promote the illegal purpose.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Amawi v. Pflugerville Indep. Sch. Dist. · Cooper v. Henslee