United States Department of Agriculture v. Murry’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
126 federal appellate · 50 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 476 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Weinberger v. Salfi (1975), Vance v. Bradley (1979)
126 federal appellate · 50 district · 109 state decisions — followed in 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Stanley v. Illinois · Dandridge v. Williams · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Branzburg v. Hayes
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 476 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is forbidden by the Due Process Clause to deny an individual the resident [tuition] rates on the basis of a permanent and irrebuttable presumption of nonresidence, when that presumption is not necessarily or universally true in fact, and when the State has reasonable alternative means of making the crucial determination.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some “reasonable basis,” it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification “is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.” Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 , [ 31 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 55 L.Ed. 369 ]. “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.” Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70 , [ 33 S.Ct. 441, 443 , 57 L.Ed. 730 ]. “A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 [ 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“One aspect of fundamental fairness, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause . , is that individuals similarly situated must receive the same treatment by the Government. As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, the Government “must exercise [its] powers so as not to discriminate between [its] inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of the regulation.” . It is a corollary of this requirement that, in order to determine whether persons are indeed similary situated, “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands” must be provided. United States Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508, 517 , 93 S.Ct. 2832, 2837 , 37 L.Ed.2d 767 (1973), (Mr. Justice Marshall, concurring), (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Morales v. Minter
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.