Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Breen v. Carlsbad Municipal Schools (2005), NMAC New Mexico Mining Ass'n v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (2006)
56 state decisions
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 City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · United States v. Salerno · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Plyler v. Doe · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is an arbitrary and irrational means to achieve the [s]tate’s objectives. For instance, there is no evidence in the record to suggest either what percentage of claimants approach or reach the fee limitation at the administrative level, or the typical amount of time expended by attorneys either at the administrative level or on appeal ... [or that the amount specified in the fee cap provision] has been insufficient to cover workers’ attorney fees at the administrative and appellate levels.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“If legislation impacts important but not fundamental rights, or sensitive but not suspect classifications, intermediate scrutiny is warranted and we require the [s]tate to demonstrate that the law is substantially related to an important government purpose. If a law draws suspect classifications or impacts fundamental rights, we apply strict scrutiny and require the [s]tate to demonstrate that the provision at issue is closely tailored to a compelling government purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gentry v. SHUG
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.