Kaufman v. McCaughtry’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.3d 678 · 2005
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Vision Church, United Methodist v. Village of Long Grove (2006), Koger v. Bryan (2008)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Turner v. Safley · Lemon v. Kurtzman · Wisconsin v. Yoder · O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] government policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular purpose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court went astray when it evaluated Kaufman’s claim on the assumption that he wanted to form a nonreligious group. Based on that premise, it held that the defendants were entitled to assess Kaufman’s proposal under the more restrictive set of regulations that applies to normal social groups. Had the premise been correct, the conclusion would have followed; no one says that a person who wants to form a chess club at the prison is entitled under the Establishment Clause to have the application evaluated as if chess were a religion, no matter how devoted he is to the game.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends ... to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kaufman v. Pugh
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.