Thiry v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.3d 1491 · 1996
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne (2006), Swanson ex rel. Swanson v. Guthrie Independent School District No. I-L (1998)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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 Wisconsin v. Yoder · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that to exceed RFRA’s “substantial burden” threshold, government regulation—“must significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of ... [an individual’s] beliefs; must meaningfully curtail [an individual’s] ability to express adherence to his or her faith; or must deny [an individual] reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to [an individual’s] religion.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We review the meaning of the [RFRA] de novo, including the definitions as to what constitutes substantial burden and what constitutes a religious belief, and the ultimate determination as to whether the [RFRA] has been violated....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Werner v. McCotter · Mollie v. Ward“The government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (a) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (b) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
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.