Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 346 FSUPP 897 - Levy v. Parker

Levy v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
4
states following
January 2008
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2008

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

1401972198019902000decided

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. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343

Relies on Gault · Flast v. Cohen · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Shapiro v. Thompson · Sherbert v. Verner

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

  1. ““. . . assures equality not only in the imposition but also in the distribution of state revenues. (Citation omitted). Even largess must be dispensed with an even hand. (Citations omitted.) Tax relief funds, designed to assist localities by making funds raised by state taxes available to local governmental agencies, must be administered by statute and in practice so as to avoid that governmental favoritism to one person over another that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to proscribe. The failure to accord equal protection to all persons may not be justified by the sophistry that the receipt of funds from the legislature is a ‘privilege’ and not a ‘right.’ ” 346 F.Supp. 897, 903 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Louisiana’s practice is not a matter of variation in state taxation, the manner by which the state raises its funds. The discrimination lies in the arbitrary inequality of the distribution of state funds. 28 U.S.C. § 1341 is inapplicable here because the suit does not seek to enjoin the collection of taxes; it challenges only the unequal distribution of state funds. Nor is the question merely how assessments are made; adequate remedy to challenge assessment procedure is available in state courts.” Levy v. Parker, 346 F.Supp. at 904 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “first collected into its treasury all the proceeds of the tax from all sources and then appropriated amounts equal to those collected from the municipalities and districts to such entities.” Id. at 640. Such action by the State would not be constitutionally improper, since “[n]o requirements of uniformity or of equal protection of the law limit the power of a legislature in respect to allocation and distribution of public funds.” Id. See also 84 C J.S. Taxation § 34 (1954 & Supp. 1983) (”
    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.