Patrick v. R’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Ltd. Partnership (1994), Jolly v. Coughlin (1996)
2 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Haines v. Kerner · Bell v. Wolfish · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Pell v. Procunier
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the judiciary is singularly ill-equipped to sit in judgment on the verity of an adherent’s religious beliefs. Mindful of this profound limitation, our competence properly extends to determining “whether the beliefs professed by a [claimant] are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]incerity analysis is exceedingly amorphous, requiring the factfinder to delve into the [employee's] most veiled motivations and vigilantly separate the issue of sincerity from the factfinder's perception of the religious nature of the [employee's] beliefs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wlhere subjective issues regarding a litigant's slate of mind, motive, sincerity or conscience are squarely implicated, summary judgment would appear to be inappropriate and a trial indispensable. The need for a full exposition of facts is profound under such circumstances since determining a man’s state of mind is “an awesome problem,’’ capable of resolution only by reference to a panoply of subjective factors. Furthermore, a sojourn into an adherent's mind-set will inevitably trigger myriad factual inferences, as to which reasonable persons might differ in their resolution. Traditionally, this function has been entrusted to the jury.”
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.