Stephen Catanzaro’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Wantanabe Realty Corp. v. City of New York (2003), 181 F. Supp. 2d 53 - Fetto v. Sergi (2001)
9 district · 2 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a constitutional violation only where such invocation is arbitrary or amounts to an abuse of discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A bona fide residence requirement, appropriately, defined and uniformly applied, furthers the substantial state interest in assuring that services provided for its residents are enjoyed only by residents. Such a requirement with respect to attendance in public free schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It does not burden or penalize the constitutional right of interstate travel, for any person is free to move to a State and to establish residence there. A bona fide residence requirement simply requires that the person ... establish residence before demanding the services that are restricted to residents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Either the necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticably of providing any meaningful predeprivation process, when coupled with the availability of some meaningful means by which to assess the propriety of the State’s action at some time after the initial taking, can satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.