Barsky v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 7 district · 144 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 381 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Whalen v. Roe (1977), Speiser v. Randall (1958)
75 federal appellate · 7 district · 144 state decisions — followed in 23 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 18 U.S.C. § 402 · 2 U.S.C. § 192
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · Yakus v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California
Cited together with Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Dent v. State of West Virginia · Roe v. Wade · Doe v. Bolton
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 381 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its borders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power. The state's discretion in that field extends naturally to the regulation of all professions concerned with health.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A man has a right to be employed, to be trusted, to be loved, to be revered.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““This statute is readily distinguishable from one which would require the automatic termination of a professional license because of some criminal conviction of its holder. Realizing the importance of high standards of character and law observance on the part of practicing physicians, the State has adopted a flexible procedure to protect the public against the practice of medicine by those convicted of many more kinds and degrees of crime than it can well list specifically. It accordingly has sought to attain its justifiable end by making the conviction of any crime a violation of its professional medical standards, and then leaving it to a qualified board of doctors to determine initially the measure of discipline to be applied to the offending practitioner. # # # The above provisions, on their face, are well within the degree of reasonableness required to constitute due process of law in a field so permeated with public responsibility as that of health.””
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.