Peters v. Narick’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2018
4 federal appellate · 20 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 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Shapiro v. Thompson · Douglas v. People of State of California · Craig v. Boren · Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a statute is defective because of under-inclusion there exist two remedial alternatives: a court may either declare it a nullity and order that its benefits not extend to the class that the legislature intended to benefit, or it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by its exclusion. Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 361 , 90 S.Ct. 1792, 1807-08 , 26 L.Ed.2d 308, 331 (1970).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“States have the power to interpret state constitutional guarantees in a manner different than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted comparable federal constitutional guarantees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Choosing between invalidation or neutral extension requires an ascertainment of the predominate legislative purpose underlying the statute’s enactment. Beal v. Beal, 388 A.2d 72 (Me.1978). That is to say, given the nature and substance of the statute, its legislative history, if any, considering it in the context of the larger domestic relations scheme of which it is a part, and considering the relevant economical, social, and historical implications, can it be validly concluded that benefits should be terminated to the class of persons who now benefit by the statute, i.e., women? We believe not. Clearly the legislative purpose embodied in the separate maintenance statute is to provide financial help to the dependent spouse and thereby preserve the economic status of the marriage pending further developments. This purpose would be thwarted by an invalidation of the statute, but by extending the statute’s benefits to men we conclude the legislative purpose would be effectuated.” 270 S.E.2d at 767 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Murphey v. Murphey
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.