Shapp v. Sloan’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth (1985), Jubelirer v. Rendell (2008)
4 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
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 20 U.S.C. § 241C · 42 U.S.C. § 3701 · 42 U.S.C. § 3723 · 42 U.S.C. § 3731 · 42 U.S.C. § 3733 · 42 U.S.C. § 3766
Relies on United States v. Calandra · Parker v. Brown · Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · National League of Cities v. Usery · City of El Paso v. Simmons
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the General Assembly, not the executive branch, which has been given the constitutional power to determine what programs will be adopted in our Commonwealth and how they will be financed. Although this may be done upon the recommendations of the executive branch, the final determinations are legislative in nature. The executive’s function is to carry out those programs authorized by legislation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he executive branch may not of its own initiative use funds appropriated for one program in carrying out another and may not spend on a program more than its designated amount. It is in this way that the doctrine of separation of powers functions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As long as the funds are not diverted from their intended purposes and the terms and conditions prescribed by the congress are not violated, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the federal programs and state legislative administration of the funds. The federal government has expressly given the states a wide discretion in dealing with these funds. That discretion is most logically exercised by the branch of state government which is constitutionally empowered to exercise control over all expenditures.”
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.