Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 419 U.S. 498 - Schlesinger v. Ballard

Schlesinger v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

724
cited by 724 later decisions
65
cited 65 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

194 federal appellate · 67 district · 119 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 724 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Craig v. Boren (1976), Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney (1979)

194 federal appellate · 67 district · 119 state decisions — followed in 23 states

2900197519801990200020102020decided

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 10 U.S.C. § 1072 · 10 U.S.C. § 5401 · 10 U.S.C. § 5760 · 10 U.S.C. § 5776 · 10 U.S.C. § 6015 · 10 U.S.C. § 6376 · 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 37 U.S.C. § 401

Relies on McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Bolling v. Sharpe · Reed v. Reed · Eisenstadt v. Baird · Frontiero v. Richardson

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

  1. “'premised on overbroad generalizations that could not be tolerated under the Constitution.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““This court has recognized that ‘it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.’ Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 , 17 [ 76 S.Ct. 1 , 5, 100 L.Ed. 8 ]. See also Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 , 94 [ 73 S.Ct. 534 , 540, 97 L.Ed. 842 ]. The responsibility for determining how best our Armed Forces shall attend to that business rests with Congress, see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, els. 12-14, and with the President. See U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 1.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In both Reed [Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 , 92 S.Ct. 251 , 30 L.Ed.2d 225 ] and Frontiero the reason asserted to justify the challenged gender-based classifications was administrative convenience, and that alone. Here, on the contrary, the operation of the statutes in question results in a flow of promotions commensurate with the Navy’s current needs and serves to motivate qualified commissioned officers to so conduct themselves that they may realistically look forward to higher levels of command. This Court has recognized that ‘it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.’ Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 , [ 76 S.Ct. 1, 5 , 100 L.Ed. 8 ]. See also Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 , [ 73 S.Ct. 534, 540 , 97 L.Ed. 842 ], The respon sibility for determining how best our Armed Forces shall attend to that business rests with Congress, (citations omitted) and with the President. We cannot say that, in exercising its broad constitutional power here, Congress has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” 419 U.S. at 510 , 95 S.Ct. at 578-79 .”
    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.