Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 433 U.S. 229 - Wolman v. Walter

Wolman v. Walter’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

545
cited by 545 later decisions
71
cited 71 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

146 federal appellate · 51 district · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 545 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Agostini v. Felton Chancellor Board of Education of the City of New York (1997), Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia (1995)

146 federal appellate · 51 district · 90 state decisions — followed in 17 states

2560197719801990200020102020decidedoverruled

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Lemon v. Kurtzman · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Bates v. State Bar · Everson v. Board of Education · Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York

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

  1. “providing therapeutic and remedial services at a neutral site off the premises of the nonpublic schools will not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion”
    42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a legitimate interest in facilitating education of the highest quality for all children within its boundaries, whatever school their parents have chosen for them.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[C]omprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance will inevitably be required to ensure that ... the First Amendment [is] respected.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan · Rudy Pulido John M. Swomley And, G. Hugh Wamble v. Lauro F. Cavazos, Individually and as Secretary of U.S. Department of Education United States Department of Education And, Blue Hills Homes Corporation, Ronald Jones Theresa Jones Grace Moorning William Grahl Julia Ann Grahl Dwayne Johnson Barbara Johnson Daniel Hof Linda Hof Pamela Joan Brobst Linda Johnson Gerald Dunn Mary Dunn Michael Ewing Jo Ellen Ewing Kenneth Menges Carol Menges Dr. John Senott Marcia Senott Sharon Spinks Connie Welschmeyer Jess Smith And, Rosa Smith, Intervenors Below. Rudy Pulido John M. Swomley And, G. Hugh Wamble v. Lauro F. Cavazos, Individually and as Secretary of U.S. Department of Education United States Department of Education And, Blue Hills Homes Corporation. Ronald Jones Theresa Jones Grace Moorning William Grahl Julia Ann Grahl Dwayne Johnson Barbara Johnson Daniel Hof Linda Hof Pamela Joan Brobst Linda Johnson Gerald Dunn Mary Dunn Michael Ewing Jo Ellen Ewing Kenneth Menges Carol Menges Dr. John Senott Marcia Senott Sharon Spinks Connie Welschmeyer Jess Smith And, Rosa Smith, (Intervenors Below). Rudy Pulido John M. Swomley And, G. Hugh Wamble v. Lauro F. Cavazos, Individually and as Secretary of U.S. Department of Education United States Department of Education And, Blue Hills Homes Corporation, Ronald Jones Theresa Jones Grace Moorning William Grahl Julia Ann Grahl Dwayne Johnson Barbara Johnson Daniel Hof Linda Hof Pamela Joan Brobst Linda Johnson Gerald Dunn Mary Dunn Michael Ewing Jo Ellen Ewing Kenneth Menges Carol Menges Dr. John Senott Marcia Senott Sharon Spinks Connie Welschmeyer Jess Smith And, Rosa Smith, (Intervenors Below)

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.