Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.2d 1050 - Austin v. Berryman

Austin v. Berryman’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.2d 1050 · 1988

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2010

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

701988199020002010decided

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 Edelman v. Jordan · Sherbert v. Verner · Moore v. City of East Cleveland · Everson v. Board of Education · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'directly and substantially' interfere with the fundamental right to marry.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e, uh, abide by what the Bible tells us and we live what is wrote in God’s Word, His Bible. ... [0]ur belief is that we honor our husband. It tells you in the Bible that you honor your husband and his decisions on things. And, uh, [we] feel like that if you go against a decision like this pertaining to his mother, which it says in the Commandments that you honor your father and your mother. And in this case his mother needed him and he felt like that he would be going against what the, that our religion is, that he would be going against God’s Word if he did not go and, and take care of his mother when she was in need. And therefore [we] also believe[ ] that you honor your husband’s decision and that you go where your husband says go, because [we] feel like that that’s breaking up a home ... if you don’t. It is been taught to us and in the Bible it, it tells you. It’s not that, uh, it’s, it’s his mother and, and it, and, respect it is my mother too in our belief. It is, um ... She’s just like, it would be my own mother in our belief because she’s part of our family. It’s her, it’s his mother, but just like, um, my mother and father, we do and, and honor what they think_ And what they need. ... I ... didn’t feel like there was any other choice to be made.... [Bjecause of our religion I felt ... it was the right thing to do because his mother needed help and she’s part of the family and we abide by our religion that part of the fam[ily].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Austin’s] decision to terminate employment was not because of any religious objection to the job held or work requirements expected of her. [She] was, at all times, consistent with her claimed religious belief, able to be employed but for the decision of her husband to relocate. In this case, [her] decision to quit her employment had nothing to do with any religious objection to the job itself or to a requirement of the employer.”
    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.