Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 450 F.2d 1069 - Bishop v. Colaw

Bishop v. Colaw’s Empirical Analysis

450 F.2d 1069 · 1971

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Crain v. Board of Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of St. Louis (1990), Freeman v. Flake (1972)

44 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 16 states

660197119801990200020102020decided

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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Griswold v. State of Connecticut · United States v. O'Brien · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Union Pac Ry Co v. Botsford

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

  1. “[p]ersonal freedoms are not absolute; they must yield when they intrude upon the freedoms of others. Our task, therefore, is to weigh the competing interests asserted here. In doing so, we proceed from the premise that the school administration carries the burden of establishing the necessity of infringing upon Stephen's freedom in order to carry out the educational mission of the . . . High School.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[nonconforming hairstyle] need not symbolize anything at all . . . to be a constitutionally protected expression.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Nevertheless, a state's invasion into the personal rights and liberty of an individual, of whatever age or description, should present a justiciable issue worthy of federal review. There is little doubt that this regulation seeks to restrict a young person's personal liberty to mold his own lifestyle through his personal appearance. To say that the issue is not 'substantial' turns a deaf ear to the basic values of individual privacy and the freedom to caricature one's own image. Our institutions do not rely on submerging individual personality in order to create an 'idealized' citizen. Cf. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 401, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.