Kelley v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

414 federal appellate · 94 district · 197 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 1,165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Thus the question is not, as the Court of Appeals conceived it to be, whether the State can “establish” a “genuine public need” for the specific regulation. It is whether respondent can demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation, based as it is on the county’s method of organizing its police force, and the promotion of safety of persons and property. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 , 100-101 [ 67 S.Ct. 556 , 569-570, 91 L.Ed. 754 , 773-774] (1947); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 30-31, 35-37 [ 25 S.Ct. 358 , 363, 365-366, 49 L.Ed. 643 , 651-652, 653-654] (1905). We think the answer here is so clear that the District Court was quite right in the first instance to have dismissed respondent’s complaint. Neither this Court, the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court is in a position to weigh the policy arguments in favor of and against a rule regulating hairstyles as a part of regulations governing a uniformed civilian service. The constitutional issue to be decided by these courts is whether petitioner’s determination that such regulations should be enacted is so irrational that it may be branded “arbitrary,” and therefore a deprivation of respondent’s “liberty” interest in freedom to choose his own hairstyle. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 , 487-88 [ 75 S.Ct. 461 , 464-465, 99 L.Ed.2d 563 , 571-572] (1955).”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. East Hartford Education Ass'n v. Board of Education of East Hartford · Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, and Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, and Arizonans for Official English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin

2. “demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation, based as it is on the county's method of organizing its police force, and the promotion of safety of persons and property.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fabio v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ETC. · 896 F. Supp. 276 - Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York

3. “discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hunter v. Town of Mocksville · Turney v. Civil Service Commission