Valente v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 562 · 1981
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Lemon v. Kurtzman · Wisconsin v. Yoder · School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania v. Schempp J Murray III · Everson v. Board of Education
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] considerable burden is on the state, in questioning a claim of a religious nature. Strict or narrow construction of a statutory exemption for religious organizations is not favored. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia , 249 F.2d 127 , 129 (D.C.Cir.1957, Burger, J.).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“churches which are new and lacking in a constituency, or which, as a matter of policy, may favor public solicitation over general reliance on financial support from members,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e agree with the district court's holding that [appellees] have standing to challenge the classification made in the exemption section of the Act, as it pertains to religious organizations; we agree with the court's invalidation of the classification made in that section; we agree that the exemption section should apply to all religious organizations, subject to possible legislative revision; we disagree with the conclusion that no part of the Act may be applied to religious organizations, but leave open questions of construction and validity for further development, including the application of the Act to charitable organizations; and we disagree with the conclusion that [appellees] and others claiming the religious exemption should automatically enjoy such exemption, but leave open the question of [appellees'] status for further development.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Larson v. Valente
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.