Morey v. Doud’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
152 federal appellate · 102 district · 510 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,130 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Stanley v. Illinois (1972), Dandridge v. Williams (1970)
152 federal appellate · 102 district · 510 state decisions — followed in 43 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Schneider v. State · Royster Guano Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live
Cited together with Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Dandridge v. Williams · Shapiro v. Thompson
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 1,130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from the State the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that regard, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary. 2. A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. 3. When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed. 4. One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rener v. Beto · State v. Brown“[Distinctions in the treatment of business entities engaged in the same business activity may be justified by genuinely different characteristics of the business involved. This is so even where the discrimination is by name.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a statutory discrimination must be based on differences that are reasonably related to the purposes of the Act in which it is found.”
5 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.