Valentine v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
654 F.2d 503 · 1981
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Wrenn v. Gould (1987), Miener v. State (1982)
28 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Quern v. Jordan · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantially related to the object of remedying prior discrimination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) its implementation results or is designed to result in the hiring of a sufficient number of minority applicants so that the racial balance of the employer’s work force approximates roughly, but does not exceed, the balance that would have been achieved absent the past discrimination; (2) the plan endures only so long as is reasonably necessary to achieve its legitimate goals; (3) the plan does not result in hiring unqualified applicants; and (4) the plan does not completely bar whites from all vacancies or otherwise unnecessarily or invidiously trammel their interests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Where the applicant is qualified, the risk of stigma is considerably less because presumably the person can perform the task adequately. The evidence in this case shows not only that Georgia Mitchell [the black applicant] was fully qualified for the job but also she performed very well as a teacher. We cannot invalidate ASU’s affirmative action plan, or its application to the facts here, on the supposition that someone might be stigmatized.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.