3 Cal. 3d 226 - In Re King’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 582 - Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976), 5 Cal. 3d 258 - Blair v. Pitchess (1971)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 153 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. § 1073
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Shapiro v. Thompson · Sherbert v. Verner · Leary v. United States
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is basic that the guarantees of equal protection . . . prohibit the state from arbitrarily discriminating among persons subject to its jurisdiction. This principle, of course, does not preclude the state from drawing any distinctions between different groups of individuals, but does require that, at a minimum, classifications which are created bear a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose. [Citations.] Moreover, `in cases involving”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . . the state bears the burden of establishing not only that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law but that distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose.' [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“distinguishes between two “categories” or “classifications” of nonsupporting fathers — (1) those nonsupporting fathers who “remain out of the state” for 30 days and (2) those who do not — and the section singles out those falling within the former classification for more severe punishment. Thus, ..., any father who “remains out of the state” of California for 30 days while not supporting his child is guilty of a felony; a father who commits the identical act of criminal nonfea-sance, but happens tp be within California, is guilty only of a misdemeanor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Boetscher
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.