645 F. Supp. 2d 992 - Hill v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 7601 (PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act of 2013) · 26 U.S.C. § 501 · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 300 · 47 U.S.C. § 390
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Perry v. Sindermann · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Government can, without violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program which seeks to deal with the problem in another way. In so doing, the Government has not discriminated on the basis of viewpoint; it has merely chosen to fund one activity to the exclusion of the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The State is free to fund adoption services to exclusion of any abortion-related services, but it may not deny [the plaintiff motorists and non-profit pro-choice association] funding [for specialty license plate fees] conditioned upon [the plaintiff's] waiver of its right to engage in protected speech activity with its private funds.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.