Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 U.S. 1037 - Williams Et Al. v. Shaffer

Williams Et Al. v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 17 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977)

27 federal appellate · 17 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 12 states

550196719701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Smith v. Bennett · Liner v. Jafco, Inc. · Burns v. Ohio · Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County Okl

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

  1. ““We have recognized that the promise of equal justice for all would be an empty phrase for the poor if the ability to obtain judicial relief were made to turn on the length of a person’s purse. It is true that these cases have dealt with criminal proceedings. But the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited to criminal prosecutions. Its protections extend as well to civil matters. I can see no more justification for denying an indigent a hearing in an eviction proceeding solely because of his poverty than for denying an indigent the right to appeal, . . . the right to file a habeas corpus petition, ... or the right to obtain a transcript necessary for appeal. . . . “. . . Though a State may not constitutionally be required to afford a hearing before its process is used to evict a tenant, having provided one it cannot discriminate between rich and poor. It cannot consistently with the Equal Protection Clause provide a hearing in such a way as to discriminate against some ‘on account of their poverty’ ”.”
    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.