Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 998 F.2d 824 - Roberts

Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 16 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Seamons v. Snow (1996), Murray v. New York University College of Dentistry (1995)

24 federal appellate · 16 district ·

4301990200020102020decided

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 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Carnegie v. United States · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · United States v. Swift & Co.

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

  1. “[w]hether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'sets a high standard: it demands not merely some accommodation, but full and effective accommodation. If there is sufficient interest and ability among members of the statistically underrepresented gender, not slaked by existing programs, an institution necessarily fails this prong of the test.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Title IX does not require that a school pour ever-increasing sums into its athletic establishment. If a university prefers to take another route, it can also bring itself into compliance with the first benchmark of the accommodation test by subtraction and downgrading, that is, by reducing opportunities for the over represented gender while keeping opportunities stable for the underrepresented gender (or reducing them to a much lesser extent).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.