Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 F.2d 1179 - United States of America, Appellant-Appellee v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, Appellee-Appellant

United States of America, Appellant-Appellee v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, Appellee-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis

508 F.2d 1179 · 1975

Citation profile

209
cited by 209 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 21 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 209 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Ramseur v. Chase Manhattan Bank (1989), Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights (1977)

89 federal appellate · 21 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 12 states

550197519801990200020102020decided

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 Monroe v. Pape · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson

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

  1. “actually or predictably results in racial discrimination; in other words that it has a discriminatory effect.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “clever men may easily conceal their motivations.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[o]nce the plaintiff has established a prima facie case by demonstrating racially discriminatory effect, the burden shifts to the governmental defendant to demonstrate that its conduct was necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.”
    5 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.