Roe v. Ingraham’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 102 · 1973
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Katz v. United States · Roe v. Wade · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson · Eisenstadt v. Baird
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Constitutional insubstantiality’ for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as ‘essentially fictitious,’ . . . ‘wholly insubstantial,’ . . ‘obviously frivolous,’ . . . and ‘obviously without merit,’ . . . The limiting words ‘wholly’ and ‘obviously’ have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect of prior decisions upon the substantiality of constitutional claims, those words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2281 .” Id. at 518 , 93 S.Ct. at 859 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Also, we do not read the portion of Doe v. Bolton, supra, 410 U.S. at 198, 93 S.Ct. 739 , striking down Georgia’s “two doctor concurrence” requirement as meaning that a state is wholly without power to regulate the practice of medicine or the activities of physicians except by professional censure, deprivation of licenses, or enforcement of the criminal law. 480 F.2d at 108 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If it were clear that the State had taken or proposed to take effective steps, by regulation or otherwise, to limit access to the patients’ names on the prescription forms as rigidly as is consistent with accomplishment of the asserted statutory purpose, the grounds for • constitutional attack might disappear. 480 F.2d at 109 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.