Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 523 · 1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb (1987)
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Washington v. Davis · Griffin v. Breckenridge · McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. · Runyon v. McCrary
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state, not the individual is the sole source of law, and it is only the state acting through its agents, not the private individuals, which is capable of denying to blacks the full and equal benefit of the law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. [I]f two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; [or] (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws ... in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or mo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Manzanares did not hold that a defendant’s mere perception of a plaintiff as racially distinct is sufficient to constitute racial discrimination in violation of section 1981. Instead, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that Mexican-Americans, as a group, are commonly treated differently from Anglo-Americans, as a group. We do not find the position of Jews in this society to be analogous to that of Mexican-Americans or others commonly considered to be non-whites.”
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.