Labine v. Vincent’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 37 district · 250 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 483 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey (1992), Linda R. S. v. Richard D. (1973)
59 federal appellate · 37 district · 250 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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 Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Douglas v. People of State of California · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 483 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . the power to make rules to establish, protect, and strengthen family life as well as to regulate the disposition of property left in Louisiana by a man dying there is committed by the Constitution of the United States and the people of Louisiana to the legislature of that State. Absent a specific constitutional guarantee, it is for that legislature, not the life-tenured judges of this Court, to select from among possible laws.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Art. 206. Illegitimate children, though duly acknowledged, can not claim the rights of legitimate children. The rights of natural children are regulated under the title: Of Successions. Art. 919. Natural children are called to the inheritance of their natural father, who has duly acknowledged them, when he has left no descendants nor ascendants, nor collateral relations, nor surviving wife, and to the exclusion only of the State. In all other cases, they can only bring an action against their natural father or his heirs for alimony, the amount of which shall be determined, as is directed in the title: Of Father and Child. Art. 1483. Natural children or acknowledged illegitimate children can not receive from their natural parents, by donations inter vivos or mortis causa beyond what is strictly necessary to procure them sustenance, or an occupation or profession which may maintain them, whenever the father or the mother who has thus disposed in their favor, leaves legitimate children or descendants. Those donations shall be reducible in case of excess, according to the rules laid down under the title: Of Father and Child. Art. 1486. When the natural father has not left legitimate children or descendants, the natural child or children acknowledged by him may receive from him, by donation inter vivos or mortis causa to the amount of the following proportions, to wit: One-fourth of his property, if he leaves legitimate ascendants or legitimate brothers or sisters or descendants ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if we were to apply the "rational basis" test to the Louisiana intestate succession statute, that statute clearly has a rational basis in view of Louisiana's interest in promoting family life and of directing the disposition of property left within the State. 401 U.S. at 536, n. 6 , 91 S.Ct. at 1019, n. 6 , 28 L.Ed.2d at 292, n. 6 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.