Jefferson v. Hackney’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
279 federal appellate · 171 district · 304 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,236 later decisions (107 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Edelman v. Jordan (1974), Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
279 federal appellate · 171 district · 304 state decisions — followed in 35 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 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 1001 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1351 (§ 1401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Rosado v. Wyman · King v. Smith
Cited together with Dandridge v. Williams · King v. Smith · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Rosado v. Wyman · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher
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 1,236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“So long as its judgments are rational, and not invidious, the legislature's efforts to tackle the problems of the poor and the needy are not subject to a constitutional straitjacket.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(t)he acceptance of appellants' constitutional theory would render suspect each difference in treatment among the grant classes, however lacking in racial motivation and however otherwise rational the treatment might be.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“enacted at a time when persons whom the State had determined to be eligible for the payment of benefits were placed on waiting lists, because of the shortage of state funds. The statute was intended to prevent the States from denying benefits, even temporarily, to a person who has been found fully qualified for aid.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.