Ward v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 4 U.S.C. § 111
Relies on New York v. United States · Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury · Vidrio-Aleman v. United States · West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy · United States v. Johnson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is peculiarly inappropriate to focus solely on the treatment of state governmental employees. The State may always compensate in pay or salary for what it assesses in taxes. ... It trivializes the Supremacy Clause to interpret.it as prohibiting the States from providing through this limited tax exemption what the State has an unquestionable right to provide through increased retirement benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Davis does not hold, nor does it even suggest,’ that a state is prohibited from adjusting the compensation of its employees, even if the state’s purpose is to compensate its employees for the loss of the income tax exemption.... Davis requires that the state tax federal and state retirees equally and does not concern itself with the manner in which a state chooses to compensate its retirees.”
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.