Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 839 F.2d 1265 - David v. Lane

David v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

839 F.2d 1265 · 1988

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), Dawson v. Delaware (1992)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2301988199020002010decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Cannon v. University of Chicago

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

  1. “[E]ven if a neutral law has a disproportionately adverse effect upon a racial minority, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if that impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “discriminatory purpose has at least in some part shaped”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While it is possible that the federal funds received by [the prison] and earmarked for the forecasting models may directly benefit or relate to the implementation of gang regulations and protective custody procedures, plaintiffs presented no evidence of such a connection. In the absence of such evidence, the conclusion that funds earmarked for prisoner classification and population forecasting will indirectly benefit the entire [prison] system, may be reached only by “ignoring Title (Vi’s) program specific language.””
    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.