Rector Wardens and Members of Vestry of St Bartholomew's Church v. City of New York Committee to Oppose Sale of St Bartholomew's Church Incorporated J E H III’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 348 · 1990
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), 12 Cal. 4th 854 - Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Sherbert v. Verner · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[L]andmark laws are not like discriminatory, or “reverse spot,” zoning: that is, a land-use decision which arbitrarily singles out a particular parcel for different, less favorable treatment than the neighboring ones. In contrast to discriminatory zoning, which is the antithesis of land-use control as part of some comprehensive plan, the [landmark] law embodies a comprehensive plan to preserve structures of historic or aesthetic interest wherever they might be found in the city[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The central question in identifying an unconstitutional burden is whether the claimant has been denied the ability to practice his religion or coerced in the nature of those practices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural aspects of New York City ....”
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.