Goehring v. Brophy’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.3d 1294 · 1996
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Hallett v. Morgan (2002), Clark v. City of Lakewood (2001)
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 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
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah · Hanrahan v. Hampton
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he religious adherent, ... has the obligation to prove that a governmental regulatory mechanism burdens the adherent’s practice of his or her religion by pressuring him or her to commit an act forbidden by the religion or by preventing him or her from engaging in conduct or having a religious experience which the faith mandates. This interference must be more than an inconvenience; the burden must be substantial and an interference with a tenet or belief that is central to religious doctrine.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“between the lawsuit and the relief actually obtained; and (2) there is a legal basis for the claim. Id. 55 With respect to the first prong of the test, the plaintiffs in the present case point to two factors which they argue indicate that their lawsuit caused the University to revise its student fee policy. First, the plaintiffs allege that they received relief beyond that necessitated by the decision in Smith. The plaintiffs allege that the following actions by the University were not mandated by Smith: (1) The defendants altered their student fee policy to prohibit not only the funding of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goehring v. Brophy
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.