Roberts ex rel. Nelson v. Madigan’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 1047 · 1990
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Seamons v. Snow (1996), Vernon v. City of Los Angeles (1994)
45 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 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
Relies on Baker v. Carr · Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Lemon v. Kurtzman
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“on the vast majority of issues and on the issues truly contested at trial”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. John D. Allison William C. Hopkins, Jr. Galen G. McFayden Kirk R. Peterson Julie E. Peterson John W. Latta Nanette B. Latta James T. Link, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee. Roger K. Crosby, Trustee of the Trust Created Under the Crosby Group, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, John D. Allison William C. Hopkins, Jr. Galen G. McFayden Kirk R. Peterson Julie E. Peterson John W. Latta Nanette B. Latta James T. Link, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Cross-Appellees v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Appellant. Roger K. Crosby, Trustee of the Trust Created Under the Crosby Group, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Cross-Appellant. John D. Allison William C. Hopkins, Jr. Galen G. McFayden Kirk R. Peterson Julie E. Peterson John W. Latta Nanette B. Latta James T. Link, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. Roger K. Crosby, Trustee of the Trust Created Under the Crosby Group, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Bank One-Denver, Formerly Known as Affiliated National Bank-Denver, Formerly Known as Denver National Bank, a National Banking Association, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee · Allison v. K“Considering the evidence, we affirm the district court’s finding that the primary effect of the school’s actions was not to disapprove of Christianity. The mere fact that the actions were aimed exclusively at Christian religious materials does not automatically mean the actions’ primary effect was to send a disapproving message regarding Christianity. If we must draw any message from the actions, that message must be that the school district disapproves of the teaching of Christianity in the public schools. Here, we are particularly mindful, as was the district court, that there- is a “difference between teaching about religion, which is acceptable, and teaching religion, which is not.” Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1517 (D.Colo. 1989). [The teacher’s] avowed purpose for reading his Bible in class was to model reading for the students. Because [the teacher] chose to keep his Bible on his desk continuously and read it frequently, [the school principal] feared that [the teacher] was setting a Christian tone in his classroom. Having formed that impression, [the principal] had a duty to take corrective steps, and to do so in a religiously neutral manner. [The principal’s] only stated reasons were that the Christian books and the Bible might violate “separation of church and state” and that “religion may not be taught in public school.” We discern no anti-Christian message here. The school district’s conduct thus satisfies the “primary effect” test as well as the “purpose””
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.