Conlin v. Blanchard’s Empirical Analysis
890 F.2d 811 · 1989
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Lisa L. Fitzgerald v. William Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (2001), Van M. Hafford v. Larry Seidner, Warden, Lorain Correctional Institution, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1999)
43 federal appellate · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Hazelwood School District v. United States · City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. · Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education · Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty. · Dumas v. Town of Mount Vernon
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'should . . . alert[ ] the average lay person to protect his rights.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order for a race or sex based remedial measure to withstand scrutiny under the fourteenth amendment there must first be some showing of prior discrimination by the governmental entity involved, and second, the remedy adopted by the state must be tailored narrowly to achieve the goal of righting the prior discrimination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e do not have an adequate factual record before us to make a judgment as to whether the correct relevant labor pool was used [to determine underrepresentation], nor do we have any detailed findings as to how the 1971 report [which initiated the program] addresses the requirements for an adequate finding of past discrimination....”
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.