Jaffree v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 1526 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Smith v. Gte Corporation Gte (2001)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Lemon v. Kurtzman · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judicial precedence serves as the foundation of our federal judicial system. Adherence to it results in stability and predictability.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Recognizing that prayer is the quintessential religious practice implies that no secular purpose can be satisfied....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The objective of the meditation or prayer statute (Ala.Code § 16-1-20.1) was also the advancement of religion. This fact was recognized by the district court at the hearing for preliminary relief where it was established that the intent of the statute was to return prayer to the public schools. James, 544 F.Supp. at 731. The existence of this fact and the inclusion of prayer obviously involves the state in religious activities. Beck v. McElrath, 548 F.Supp. 1161 (MD Tenn.1982). This demonstrates a lack of secular legislative purpose on the part of the Alabama Legislature. Additionally, the statute has the primary effect of advancing religion. We do not imply that simple meditation or silence is barred from the public schools; we hold that the state cannot participate in the advancement of religious activities through any guise, including teacher-led meditation. It is not the activity itself that concerns us; it is the purpose of the activity that we shall scrutinize. Thus, the existence of these elements require that we also hold section 16-1-20.1 in violation of the establishment clause.”
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.