Martinez v. United States Olympic Committee’s Empirical Analysis
802 F.2d 1275 · 1986
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Mary Decker Slaney v. The International Amateur Athletic Federation and the United States Olympic Committee (2001), Wilfred Harris v. Bill Owens Jim Rizzuto - State of New Mexico (2001)
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1359 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Hagans v. Lavine · Willingham v. Morgan · Midgett v. Slayton · Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legislative history of the [Amateur Sports] Act clearly reveals that Congress intended not to create a private cause of action under the Act. The Act as originally proposed contained an ‘Amateur Athlete’s Bill of Rights,’ which included a civil cause of action in federal district court for any athlete against an NGB, educational institution, or other sports organization that threatened to deny the athlete’s right to participate in certain events. See S. 2036, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. § 304(a) (1977). As the Senate Report explains, this bill of rights provision ‘met with strong resistance by the high school and college communities. Ultimately, the compromise reached was that certain substantive provisions on athletes’ rights would be included in the USOC Constitution, and not in the bill.’ S.Rep. No. 770, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 5-6 (1978). Congress omitted the bill of rights provision in the Act’s final version. Congress thus considered and rejected a cause of action for athletes to enforce the Act’s provisions.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Benjamin Davis' rights and guarantees as provided by the constitutions and laws of the State of New Mexico and these United States, were violated under color of law,”
2 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.