Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 718 F.2d 1417 - Brown v. Alexander

Brown v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis

718 F.2d 1417 · 1983

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora (1986), Eubanks v. Wilkinson (1991)

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

1101983199020002010decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Buckley v. Valeo · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

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

  1. “The issue in this case, however, is not that the State of Tennessee by this law excludes plaintiffs from organizational activities or from associating together; nor it is claimed that through this law Tennessee denies plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard on an equal basis with TSEA; rather the complaint is directed towards permitting TSEA, which meets certain conditions, to a dues checkoff, in contrast to plaintiffs who do not meet these same conditions. The real contention in this case, then, is not that the State through the law in controversy denies plaintiffs the right to speak, or to advocate, or to associate, or to petition to redress grievances, or to picket; rather it is that the law enables the state to differentiate between plaintiffs and other labor associations if either meets certain conditions and the other does not as to a dues checkoff privilege.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond, or ... to recognize the association and bargain with it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'the First Amendment does not impose any duty on a public employer to affirmatively assist, or even to recognize a union.'”
    1 later decision 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.