Streight v. Ragland’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 district · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Misskelley v. State (1996), Jegley v. Picado (2002)
2 district · 106 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 Flast v. Cohen · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Bob Jones University v. United States · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before it is said that such hypothesizing is far afield, we re-emphasize that our role is not to discover the actual basis for the legislation. Our task is merely to consider if any rational basis exists which demonstrates the possibility of a deliberate nexus with state objectives so that the legislation is not the product of utterly arbitrary and capricious government and void of any hint of deliberate and lawful purpose. Since we can reasonably conceive of lawful purposes for the state's classification scheme, it may not be held to have been arbitrarily enacted.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The General Assembly shall not pass any local or special act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Weiss v. Geisbauer · Boyd v. Weiss“Under the rationality standard of review, we must presume the legislation is constitutional, i.e.[J that it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate governmental objective. [This presumption] imposes upon the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the legislation, i.e.[,] that the act is not rationally related to achieving any legitimate objective of state government under any reasonably conceivable state of facts.”
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.