Allstate Insurance v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.3d 151 · 2007
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Veasey v. Abbott (2016), National Ass'n of Optometrists & Opticians Lenscrafters, Inc. v. Brown (2009)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Kentucky v. Graham · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether a clear pattern of discrimination emerges from the effect of the state action; (2) the historical background of the decision, which may take into account any history of discrimination by the decisionmaking body; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up [to] the challenged decision, including departures from normal procedures; and (4) the legislative or administrative history of the state action, including contemporary statements by decisionmakers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he stray protectionist remarks of certain legislators are insufficient to condemn this statute. Our independent review of the legislative record reveals that the Legislature heard extensive testimony from various witnesses on the legitimate . . . concerns sought to be remedied .... This evidence provided a more than adequate and legitimate basis for the Legislature’s decision to adopt the proposed regulations and undercuts [plaintiff’s] contention that the enactment of the overall statutory scheme was driven by a discriminatory purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ubsidiary facts are reviewed for clear error.”
2 later decisions 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.