Richardson v. McFadden’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.2d 1130 · 1977
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably Hill v. Western Electric Co. (1982), Woodard v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners (1979)
21 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Bishop v. Wood · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Texas v. Louisiana · Corallo v. United States · Theard v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the outset, we recognize that a jurisdictional question is raised by the assertion of individual claims for relief by [appellees, plaintiffs below,] i. e., whether, in judging the intellectual fitness of applicants to practice law, the Law Examiners performed a judicial function on behalf of the South Carolina Supreme Court, so that under such precedents as Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916 , 97 S.Ct. 2179 , 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977), and MacKay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969) cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960 , 90 S.Ct. 435 , 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969), we should conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of admission to the bar. We are divided on how this issue should be decided, but we find it unnecessary to debate or resolve our differences because a clear majority of us agrees that, even if the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, the proof will not support the conclusion that [appellees] are entitled to individual relief. 563 F.2d at 1131 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first is a constitutional challenge to the state’s general rules and regulations governing admission; the second is a claim, based on constitutional or other grounds, that the state has unlawfully denied a particular applicant admission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Powell v. Nigro
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.