Gay and Lesbian Students Association v. Gohn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “a public body that chooses to fund speech or expression must do so even-handedly, without discrimination among recipients on the basis of their ideology”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia · 807 F. Supp. 1427 - Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department

2. “We realize that the District Court made no explicit finding as to the reason for denial of funding, that this is a question of fact, and that appellate courts are not fact-finding forums. We think, though, that the District Court’s opinion, when read in full and in context, includes an implicit finding that funds were denied because of distaste for the GLSA’s ideas. Otherwise, there would have been no need to resort to the legal doctrines (e.g. that there is no “right” to public money) used by the Court to justify dismissing the complaint. A finding of fact that funds were denied for some content-neutral reason would have sufficed completely to dispose of the case. In any event, the facts of this case are so obvious that a remand for an explicit finding would be a waste of time. This record leaves no reasonable doubt that funds were denied because of disagreement with GLSA’s speech, (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia

3. “The GLSA met all objective criteria for funding and received the [Student Senate's] Finance Committee’s recommendation, yet was denied funds twice. The one time the GLSA received funds, an unusual procedure was followed in presenting requests before the [Student] Senate. And, immediately after the granting of funds, the Senate voted never to fund the GLSA again. All other qualified groups received money. There was no shortage of resources, since unqualified organizations were given funds, and money was left over at the end of the appropriations period. Some student senators freely admitted they voted against the group because of its views. University officials were feeling pressure from state legislators not to fund the GLSA or to allow in any way the dissemination of opinions tolerant towards homosexuals. It is apparent that the GLSA was denied [university] funds because of the views it espoused.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 316 F. Supp. 2d 433 - Esperanza Peace and Justice Ctr. v. City of San Antonio