32 Cal. 2d 711 - Perez v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1967), 43 Cal. 3d 739 - People v. Ghent (1987)
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 105 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Race restrictions must be viewed with great suspicion, for the Fourteenth Amendment `was adopted to prevent state legislation designed to discriminate on the basis of race or color' ( Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 94 [ 65 S.Ct. 1483 , 89 L.Ed. 2072 ]; Williams v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 27 Cal.2d 586, 590 [ 165 P.2d 903 ]) and expresses `a definite national policy against discrimination because of race or color.' ( James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal.2d 721, 740 [ 155 P.2d 329 , 160 A.L.R. 900 ].) Any state legislation discriminating against persons on the basis of race or color has to overcome the strong presumption inherent in this constitutional policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘ ‘ The provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that Congress shall make no law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ is encompassed in the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment. State legislatures are therefore no more competent than Congress to enact such a law. (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 [ 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 , 128 A.L.R 1352].) They may, however, regulate conduct for the protection of society, cmd insofar as their regulations are directed towards a proper end and are not unreasonably discriminatory, they may directly affect religious activity without infringing the constitutional guarantee. Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not. (Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at pp. 303-304 .) “The regulation of marriage is considered a proper function of the state.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We agree, of course, with Mr. Justice Holmes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment `does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.' [Citation.] Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause is not shackled to the political theory of a particular era. In determining what lines are unconstitutionally discriminatory, we have never been confined to historic notions of equality, any more than we have restricted due process to a fixed catalogue of what was at a given time deemed to be the limits of fundamental rights....”
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.