Bostic v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.3d 352 · 2014
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 2584 - Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Allen v. Wright · Stanley v. Illinois
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, just as there are rational reasons for recognizing it, I conclude that we, the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact legislation on the subject in accordance with their political processes. The U.S. Constitution does not, in my judgment, restrict the States’ policy choices on this issue. If given the choice, some States will surely recognize same-sex marriage and some will surely not. But that is, to be sure, the beauty of federalism.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate, bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Condon v. Haley
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.