I repeatedly tell you that they number in the hundreds if not the thousands. Symposia are held to discuss the impact. The law review articles are mind boggling in number. Many books are written on the topic. The problem is too much data, not the paucity of it. None of these writers are JW, to my knowledge. It is huge. Every time I sit and hear a First Amendment discussion, they are mentioned. These cases were in a cluster. Every legal treatise on const' law address them in detail. Every religious and political group were the beneficiaries. Freedom in general was the beneficiary.
Personally, I believe the Witnesses were a repeat plaintiff at a crucial time. If they did not bring suit, another organization would have. Covington decided to pursue these cases aggressively. My plan to interview him was to see if I could determine the politics within the WTS of accepting amicus help from the ACLU. Covington would need the help. Technically, the ACLU could file without the Witnesses permission. The coordination interested me. The ACLU was ever interested. If I recall correctly, there were amicus briefs against the Witnesses, too. These organizations presence showed that JWs were not the only ones interested in the results. When a prof riffs about the JW cases, admiration for Witnesses as Witnesses is never uttered. It is more those troublesome people invading your privacy at home as a joke managed to be important actors for freedom. Who would guess?
Pay me $300/hour and I will do the research despite the unpleasantness. Googling will show the most important ones. You don't to read the entire articles. One need only skim the four or five sentences summarize each case relying on the Witness cases. I have access to four legal databases. FindLaw is available to normal people. If I recall, W.Va. v. Barnette is the huge one. Search "Barnette" within Findlaw's database for federal cases. A professional legal database would deliver thousands of hits. Again, within the results, don't read the entire case unless you are deeply interested. There is always a succint summary to inform lawyers what the case is about so the entire case need not be read.
Nastiness does not lead to someone performing research. Maybe you sincerely believe I have not answered. Let the record show what I did answer. Truly, I was going to do the research and make the results accessible. I use this forum casually. Since I have been here for months, I thought it could be my contribution to understanding and a nice thread for the archives.