Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 470 U.S. 632 - Bennett v. New Jersey

Bennett v. New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

536
cited by 536 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

196 federal appellate · 69 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 536 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990)

196 federal appellate · 69 district · 11 state decisions

34901985199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedNew Jersey, Dept. of Education v. Hufstedler (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming · Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation

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

  1. “The Court has refused to apply an intervening change to a pending action where it has concluded that to do so would infringe upon or deprive a person of a right that had matured or become unconditional.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “statutes affecting substantive rights and liabilities are presumed to have only prospective effect.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “absent a clear indication to the contrary in the relevant statutes or legislative history, changes in the substantive standards governing federal grant programs do not alter obligations and liabilities arising under earlier grants.”
    12 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.