Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 F.3d 1352 - Buchanan v. City of Bolivar

Buchanan v. City of Bolivar’s Empirical Analysis

99 F.3d 1352 · 1996

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably James Alexander Director Alabama Department of Public Safetys v. Martha Sandoval (2001), Hunt, Governor of North Carolina v. Cromartie (2001)

16 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

410199620002010decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Goss v. Lopez · Siegert v. Gilley · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a plaintiff must create a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant intended to discriminate on the basis of race. To establish a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff[] on the basis of his race, plaintiff must demonstrate that the decision to exclude [plaintiff] from a federally financed program was motivated by race and that his race was a determining factor in the exclusion. In other words, proof of discriminatory intent is critical.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[n]o person...shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “absent some showing that the education received at the alternative school is significantly different from or inferior to that received at his regular public school,”
    2 later decisions 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.