Johnson v. Educational Testing Service’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.2d 20 · 1985
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Dalton v. Educational Testing Service (1995), Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp. (1985)
16 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 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 First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Shelley v. Kraemer
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“erect[] no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Johnson contends that ETS is a state actor because the LSAT, which it administers, is a prerequisite to admission to nearly all law schools, many of which ... are state schools. Therefore, she argues, ETS exercises a virtual veto power over admission to law schools____ [T]he recent decisions of Blum and Rendellr-Baker are fatal to her claim. # sjs * # * * [T]he formulation, grading, and reporting or standardized tests is not an exclusive public function.... In short, Johnson’s due process claim cannot withstand the tests of Blum and Rendellr-Baker and the district court properly entered summary judgment for ETS on the [due process] claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of property as an adult book store was not sufficient to create a concrete controversy). [1] Moreover, the court notes for purposes of judicial economy and in deference to Plaintiff's pro se status, that even if this claim were ripe, as Defendant is not a state actor and does not act under color of state law, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Civil Rights Act upon which relief may be granted. To succeed on her constitutional claims, Plaintiff must show that Defendant is a state actor and that its conduct was state action, because the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.