Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 759 F.2d 714 - Schultz v. Sundberg

Schultz v. Sundberg’s Empirical Analysis

759 F.2d 714 · 1985

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
3
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service Inc. (1990), Watkins v. United States Army (1989)

59 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions

6401985199020002010decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Griffin v. Breckenridge · United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 610 v. Scott · Hutchinson v. Proxmire · United States v. Brewster

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

  1. “only when the class in question can show that there has been a governmental determination that its members 'require and warrant special federal assistance in protecting their civil rights.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “either that the courts have designated the class in question a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring more exacting scrutiny or that Congress has indicated through legislation that the class required special protection.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““When federal claims are dismissed before trial, the question whether pendent state claims should still be entertained is within the sound discretion of the district court. Generally, dismissal of federal claims before trial dictates that the pendent state claims should also be dismissed.””
    3 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.