Conaway v. Deane’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably 135 S. Ct. 2584 - Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), In Re Marriage Cases (2008)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 89 state decisions
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 1 U.S.C. § 7
Relies on City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Boyd v. United States · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he top tier of [constitutional] review contemplates that when a statute creates a distinction based upon clearly ‘suspect’ criteria, or when that enactment infringes upon personal rights or interests deemed to be ‘fundamental,’ then the legislative product must withstand a rigorous, ‘strict scrutiny.’ ” When utilizing this most-demanding standard of constitutional review, we deem unconstitutional a challenged legislative classification unless the distinction formed by it is “necessary to promote a compelling government interest.” ... In contrast, we generally employ the least exacting and most deferential standard of constitutional review when the legislative action under review neither interferes significantly with a fundamental right nor implicates a suspect classification. Under this “rational basis” level of scrutiny, the classification will pass constitutional muster so long as it is “rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” In other words, we will uphold the statute under rational basis review “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational.” Statutes reviewed pursuant to this level of scrutiny are presumed constitutional, “and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly arbitrary.” “[A] classification [subject to rational basis review] having some reasonable basis”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 24 Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides: That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.”
2 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.