Thompson v. Shapiro’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1980 · most notably Edelman v. Jordan (1974), Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
14 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Sherbert v. Verner · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the classifications of one year's residence or a job are not reasonable in light of the purpose of § 17-2d because again there is no showing that those applicants will be lesser burdens than applicants without jobs or one year's residence. Section 17-2d, in brief, violates the equal protection clause because even if its purpose were valid, [to protect the finances of the states] which it is clearly not, the classifications are unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Harrell v. Tobriner“[I]f there were here a time limit applied equally to all, for the purpose of prevention of fraud, investigation of indigency or other reasonable administrative need, it would undoubtedly be valid. Connecticut's Commissioner of Welfare frankly testified that no residence requirement is needed for any of these purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Harrell v. Tobriner“the right to travel exists and included within its dimensions is the right to establish residence in Connecticut. Denying to the plaintiff even a gratuitous benefit because of her exercise of her constitutional right effectively impedes the exercise of that right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Harrell v. Tobriner
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.