Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 F.3d 1 - Parker v. Wakelin

Parker v. Wakelin’s Empirical Analysis

123 F.3d 1 · 1997

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
9
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Parella v. Retirement Board of the Rhode Island Employees' Retirement System (1999), 52 Cal. 4th 1171 - Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011)

19 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 state decisions

2101997200020102020decided

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 Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey · United States v. Winstar Corp. · Allied Structural Steel Company v. Spannaus · General Motors Corp. v. Romein

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

  1. “[T]he Supreme Court has elaborated an analysis under which a court must first ascertain whether a change in state law has resulted in ‘“the substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.’ ” General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 , 112 S.Ct. 1105, 1109 , 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 , 98 S.Ct. 2716, 2722 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978)). Next, the reviewing court must determine whether the impairment is nevertheless justified as “reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.” United States Trust Co., 431 U.S. at 25, 97 S.Ct. at 1519.... The first step described above can be further broken down into “three components: whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]here the contract allegedly impaired is one created, or entered into, by the state itself, less deference 8 to a legislative determination of reasonableness and necessity is required, because 'the State's self-interest is at stake.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself in a contractual manner.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.