Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

132 federal appellate · 45 district · 123 state decisions

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 537 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The conscientious objector, if his liberties were to be thus extended, might refuse to contribute taxes in furtherance of a war, whether for attack or for defense, or in furtherance of any other end condemned by his conscience as irreligious or immoral. The right of private judgment has never yet been so exalted above the powers and the compulsion of the agencies of government." Hamilton v. Regents, supra, 293 U.S. at page 268, 55 S.Ct. at page 206. (Emphasis added.) 3”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · George v. United States

2. ““There need be no attempt to enumerate or comprehensively to define what is included in the ‘liberty’ protected by the due process clause. Undoubtedly it does include the right to entertain the beliefs, to adhere to the principles, and to teach the doctrines on which these students base their objections to the order prescribing military training. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625 , 67 L.Ed. 1042 , 29 A.L.R. 1446 ; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571 , 69 L.Ed. 1070 , 39 A.L.R. 468 ; Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368, 369 , 51 S.Ct. 532 , 75 L.Ed. 1117 , 73 A.L.R. 1484 ; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707 , 51 S.Ct. 625 , 75 L.Ed. 1357 . The fact that they are able to pay their way in this University but not in any other institution in California is without significance upon any constitutional or other question here involved. California has not drafted or called them to attend the University. They are seeking education offered by the state and at the same time insisting that they be excluded from the prescribed course solely upon grounds of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections to war, preparation for war, and military education. Taken on the basis of the facts alleged in the petition, appellants’ contentions amount to no more than an assertion that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a safeguard of ‘liberty’ confers the right to be students in the State University free from obligation to take ”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Summers · Bowen v. Roy

3. “Appellees contend that this court has no jurisdiction because, as they say, the regents' order is not a "statute of any state" within the meaning of § 237(a), Judicial Code. But by the California constitution the regents are, with exceptions not material here, fully empowered in respect of the organization and government of the university, which, as it has been held, is a constitutional department or function of the state government. [citations omitted.] The assailed order prescribes a rule of conduct and applies to all students belonging to the defined class. And it was because of its violation that the regents by resolution suspended these students. The meaning of "statute of any state" is not limited to acts of state legislatures. It is used to include every act legislative in character to which the State gives sanction, no distinction being made between acts of the state legislature and other exertions of the state law-making power. [citations omitted] It follows that the order making military instruction compulsory is a statute of the State within the meaning of § 237(a). (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cowboy Book, Ltd. v. Board of Regents for Agriculture & Mechanical Colleges ex rel. Oklahoma State University of Agriculture & Applied Science · 728 F. Supp. 1518 - Cowboy Book v. BD. OF REGENTS FOR AGR. & MECH. COL.