Powers v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
379 F.3d 1208 · 2004
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Teigen v. Renfrow (2007), Medeiros v. Vincent (2005)
30 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Dandridge v. Williams · Washington v. Davis · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses protect distinctly different interests. On the one hand, the “substantive component” of the Due Process Clause “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 , 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997), even when the challenged regulation affects all persons equally. In contrast, “the essence of the equal protection requirement is that the state treat all those similarly situated similarly,” Bartell v. Aurora Pub. Schs., 263 F.3d 1143, 1149 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted), with its “central purpose [being] the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race [or other suspect classifications,]” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 , 96 S.Ct. 2040 , 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). As such, equal protection only applies when the state treats two groups, or individuals, differently.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[a]s a state economic regulation that does not affect a fundamental right and categorizes people on the basis of a non-suspect classification”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[c]ourts will not strike down a law as irrational simply because it may not sue ceed in bringing about the result it seeks to accomplish, because the problem could have been better addressed in some other way, or because the statute’s classifications lack razor-sharp precision. This is the standard of review because the judicial system has long recognized that the problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough aceommodations-illogical, it may be, and unscientific.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Casciani v. Nesbitt
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.