Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 432 FSUPP 947 - Moskowitz v. Wilkinson

Moskowitz v. Wilkinson’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 1996
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1996 · most notably Goulden v. Oliver Et Al. (1979), Capoeman v. Reed (1985)

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

270197719801990decided

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 Procunier v. Martinez · Cruz v. Beto · Kahane v. Carlson · Teterud v. Burns · Mawhinney v. Henderson

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

  1. ““[T]he fact that some Jews do not object to shaving, or that others accept the dis tinction between shaving and cutting, does not defeat the plaintiff’s claim. It is his own religious belief that is asserted, not anyone else’s. The Court need not and should not attempt to determine whether a religious tribunal would hold that the tenets of the Jewish religion do not require petitioner to adhere to his preferred level of observance. He need not show that his religious practice is absolutely mandated in order to receive constitutional protection.” (Moskowitz v. Wilkinson, at 949).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The showing of a belief or practice deeply rooted in religious doctrine is sufficient to trigger the Government’s obligation under the Constitution to justify its restriction as reasonably necessary in support of an important or substantial interest. The Government does not avoid this obligation by pointing to other believers who accept less rigorous views and practices.”
    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.