11 Wash. App. 247 - Singer v. Hara’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Baker v. State (1999), 33 Cal. 4th 1055 - Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Dandridge v. Williams · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Boddie v. Connecticut · Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Reed v. Reed
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the instant case, it is apparent that the state's refusal to grant a license allowing the appellants to marry one another is not based upon appellants' status as males, but rather it is based upon the state's recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable form for procreation and the rearing of children.. . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hatcher v. Hatcher
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.