Phillips v. Vandygriff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[i]t is enough that [a private party] is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daniel v. Ferguson · Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass'n

2. “‘It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [fourteenth] Amendment to secure.’ Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 41, 36 S.Ct. 7 , 10, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915). See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 399, 43 S.Ct. 625 , 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (“Without doubt, [‘liberty’ in the fourteenth amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life____”); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 , 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752 , 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (“A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”) (footnote omitted); Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 , 492, 79 S.Ct. 1400 , 1411, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959) (“[T]he right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment____”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 573-74, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (respondent denied relief because “[t]he State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cowan v. Corley

3. ““The Due Process Clause ... protects an individual’s liberty interest which is viewed as including an individual’s freedom to work and earn a living and to establish a home and position in one’s community.” Cabrol v. Town of Youngsville, 106 F.3d 101 (5th Cir.1997), citing Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 572 , 92 S.Ct. at 2706-07 . “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and .opportunity that it was the purpose of the [fourteenth] Amendment to secure.” Phillips v. Vandygriff, 711 F.2d 1217, 1222 (5th Cir.1983), quoting Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 , 36 S.Ct. 7, 10 , 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915). See also: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625, 626 , 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (“Without doubt, [‘liberty’ in the fourteenth amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life ... ”); and Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39 , 77 S.Ct. 752, 756 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (“A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation ... for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 416 F. Supp. 2d 1098 - MacArthur v. San Juan County