Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 600 F.3d 1301 - Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone

Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone’s Empirical Analysis

600 F.3d 1301 · 2010

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Jordan v. Sosa (2011), Korte v. Sebelius (2013)

17 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions

103020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Kansas District Court)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Sherbert v. Verner · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · City of New Orleans v. Dukes

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

  1. “(1) “requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief,” (2) “prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” or (3) “places substantial pressure on an adherent ... to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The prima facie elements of a RLUIPA claim are the 'wish[ ] to engage in (1) a religious exercise (2) motivated by a sincerely held belief, which exercise (3) is subject to a substantial burden imposed by the government.'”
    2 later decisions 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.