Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 FSUPP 339 - Rothstein v. Wyman

Rothstein v. Wyman’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 1989
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1989 · most notably Dandridge v. Williams (1970), Rosado v. Wyman (1970)

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

300196919701980decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 2 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Sherbert v. Verner · Dombrowski v. Pfister

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

  1. ““* # * in the interest of maintaining a proper balance between state and federal authorities the Equal Protection Clause should not be used to interfere with the state legislative process.” “The need or appropriateness of legislation is to be determined by the legislature, not the courts, and the latter should not substitute their economic or social beliefs for those of the former.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““appear to be aimed at the fundamentally sound objective of assuring that persons in like circumstances should be treated equally throughout a state . . . .” Rothstein v. Wyman, supra at 350-351.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““* * # a legislative discrimination which is purely arbitrary and draws invidious, irrational distinctions cannot withstand a Fourteenth Amendment attack. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.