Starns v. Malkerson’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 14 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Weinberger v. Salfi (1975), Sosna v. Iowa (1975)
15 federal appellate · 14 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 21 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Shapiro v. Thompson · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘While we fully recognize the value of higher education, we cannot equate its attainment with food, clothing and shelter. Shapiro involved the immediate and pressing need for preservation of life and health of persons unable to live without public assistance, and their dependent children. Thus, the residence requirement in Shapiro could cause great suffering and even loss of life. The durational residence requirement for attendance at publicly financed institutions of higher learning do not involve similar risks. * * * .’ [Citing Kirk v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of California, 273 Cal.App.2d 430 , 78 Cal.Rptr. 260 (1969)]. “For the above reasons, we conclude that this is not a case of an infringement of a fundamental right and thus the exacting standards of compelling state interest test have no application.” 326 F.Supp. at 238 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e conclude that this is not a case of an infringement of a fundamental right and thus the exacting standards of the compelling state interest test have no application. Unlike Shapiro, we find the one-year durational residence requirement challenged here does not constitute a penalty upon the exercise of the constitutional right of interstate travel and thus the regulation’s constitutionality should be tested under the traditional equal protection standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No student is eligible for resident classification in the University . . . unless he has been a bona fide domiciliary of the state for at least a year immediately prior thereto. . . . For University purposes, a student does not acquire a domicile in Minnesota until he has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student; this involves the probability of his remaining in Minnesota beyond his completion of school.”
2 later decisions 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.