Coe v. Bogart’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 10 · 1975
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably Landrigan v. City of Warwick (1980), Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines, Inc. (1981)
18 federal appellate · 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Moor v. County of Alameda · National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc · State v. Yoakum
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Coe also contends that Judge Taylor abused his discretion in refusing to consider his pendent claim under the Teacher”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall have tenure as teachers and not necessarily tenure in the specific type of position in which they may be employed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sharp v. Lindsey · Sharp v. Lindsey“An action was brought against the Superintendent of Schools and certain members of the Board of Education in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 . By amendments to the pleadings, plaintiffs also asserted that their claims under the State Teachers’ Tenure Statute were cognizable in federal court on the theory of pendent jurisdiction. The District Court assumed pendent jurisdiction and rendered judgments of $5,948 in favor of one principal and $8,175 in favor of the other, against the Superintendent of Schools and four members of the Board of Education, all in their individual capacities. We reverse on the ground that the record shows no deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities of appellees secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States so as to support an action under § 1983; and that, since the federal claim does not have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the District Court, that court erred in assuming pendent jurisdiction under the Kentucky Teachers’ Tenure Act and the common law of Kentucky. This statute should be administered by the Courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and not by the federal judiciary. Transfer of jurisdiction to federal courts cannot be accomplished by the procedural device of filing an unsubstantial action under § 1983, coupled with a prayer for exercise of pendent jurisdiction. (Footnote omitted.)”
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.