Fullilove v. Kreps’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 600 · 1978
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1360 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1971 (Civil Rights Act of 1957) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Buckley v. Valeo · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Washington v. Davis · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
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.
““There must first be a ‘clear-cut pattern of long-continued and egregious racial discrimination.’ Second, the effect of reverse discrimination must not be ‘identifiable,’ that is to say, concentrated upon a relatively small, ascertainable group of non-minority persons.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component prohibiting the United States from invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is established that in fashioning remedies for past discrimination courts must be sensitive to interests which may be adversely affected by the remedy. The courts, here, as in a number of other areas where legislation for which there is a compelling interest collides with constitutional principles, have adopted an ad hoc balancing test which examines each particular case . . . . One of the significant limitations on a remedy of ‘reverse discrimination’ for past discrimina tion is that its effects shall ‘not be “identifiable,” that is to say, concentrated upon a relatively small ascertainable group of non-minority persons.’ EEOC v. Local 638 . . . Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers, 532 F.2d 821, 828 (2d Cir. 1976). See also Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 520 F.2d 420, 427 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 823 , 97 S.Ct. 73 , 50 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976).””
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.