Teigen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably State v. Holbach (2009), State v. Blunt (2008)
27 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 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Bowsher v. Synar · County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society of North Dakota · Van Grinsven v. G.R.H. · Haverford Township v. Siegle
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'All regularly enacted statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, which is conclusive unless the party challenging the statute clearly demonstrates that it contravenes the state or federal constitution.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The equal protection guarantee does not forbid classifications, but simply keeps government decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike. Where, as here, a statute regulates social or economic matters without using suspect classifications or involving fundamental rights and is challenged on equal protection grounds, we apply the rational basis standard of review. This test has been described as “a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary.” We have noted the standard is especially deferential in the context of classifications made by complex tax laws. Under the rational basis test, a legislative classification will be upheld unless it is patently arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. For purposes of rational basis review, equal protection does not demand that a legislature or governing decisionmaker actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification; however, there must be an identifiable purpose that may conceivably or reasonably have been that of the government decision-maker. Thus, if a reviewing court can conceive of a reason justifying the choice made by the legislature or government decisionmaker in service of a legitimate end, the statute do”
1 later decision 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.