Commonwealth v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 236 - People v. Olivas (1976), 5 Cal. 3d 1 - Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971)
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 10 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 McLaughlin v. Florida · West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · Goesaert v. Cleary · Curt Muller v. State of Oregon · Radice v. People of New York
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A good case can be made for the proposition that it is not necessary to resort to a constitutional amendment to abolish state laws which make unfair discriminations between men and women in employment or any other sphere of life. This argument rests upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from treating differently persons similarly situated, and is now being interpreted by the courts to invalidate state laws which single out women for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification. “To be sure, the Equal Protection Clause may not satisfy the extreme demands of a few advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment who would convert men and women into beings not only equal but alike, and grant them identical rights and impose upon them identical duties in all the relationships and undertakings of fife. “It cannot be gainsaid, however, that the Equal Protection Clause, properly interpreted, nullifies every state law lacking a rational basis which seeks to make rights and responsibilities turn upon sex. “My view is shared by legal scholars. Their views on this subject are succinctly expressed by Bernard Schwartz in his recent commentary on the Constitution of the United States which declares ‘that a law based upon sexual classification will normally be deemed inherently unreasonable unless it is intended for the protection of the female sex.’ “The best example of the Supreme Court’s willingness to use the 14th Amendment to str”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A classification by sex alone would not, per se, offend the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. For example, there are undoubtedly significant biological, natural and practical differences between men and women which would justify, under certain circumstances, the establishment of different employment qualification standards. * * * We are convinced, however, that the considerations and factors which would justify a difference between men and women in matters of employment, as well as in a number of other matters, do not govern or justify the imposition of a longer or greater sentence on women than is imposed upon men for the commission of the same crime.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, (Penn.Sup. Ct.), 243 A.2d 400 (7/30/68).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“difference between men and women in matters of employment”
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.