Gordon M. Jackson, Jr. v. The American Bar Association, an Unincorporated Association’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Twohy v. First National Bank (1985), City of Milwaukee v. Saxbe (1976)
19 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 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Rosado v. Wyman · Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis · Snyder v. Harris
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.
““* a a -phe Fifth Amendment claim of appellants was predicated upon an allegation that ‘the United States Government has become so interdependent with Defendant and involved in its business to such a significant extent as to make the acts of Defendant, herein complained of, the acts of the United States Government.’ Thus, as we understand the argument, the acts of the ABA in amending its bylaws were the acts of the United States; because they were discriminatory, the acts were in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This, of course, raises the ‘state action’ discrimination problem illustrated so clearly by Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 , 81 S. Ct. 856 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1961), and Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 , 92 S. Ct. 1965 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1972). We find the facts here to fit the profile established by Moose Lodge rather than Wilmington Parking Authority. The affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss disclose that while substantial funding was received from the United States, it went to a separate entity know as the Fund for Public Education and was kept entirely separate from the ABA general funds. The affidavits also disclose that the activity charged as discriminatory was activity of the association in its private capacity — the management of the organization itself — and had little or nothing to do with the Fund for Public Education. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the government intrud”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[AJppellants complain that they were not permitted to amend their complaint and urge that such an option be tendered now. The reason urged is that since the case was decided below on a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). But where a motion to dismiss is supported by affidavits on both sides, it becomes a speaking motion and is treated as a motion for summary judgment. [Citations omitted.] Furthermore, the record does not disclose any effort to amend. Under the circumstances here, the request to remand with instructions to permit amendment comes too late.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Black v. Payne“'Where the complaint seeks injunctive or declaratory relief and not monetary damages, the amount in controversy is not what might have been recovered in money, but rather the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.”
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.