Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 432 U.S. 1 - Nyquist v. Mauclet

Nyquist v. Mauclet’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

399
cited by 399 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

105 federal appellate · 36 district · 104 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 399 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Plyler v. Doe (1982), County of Los Angeles v. Davis (1979)

105 federal appellate · 36 district · 104 state decisions — followed in 22 states

1230197719801990200020102020decided

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 Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher

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

  1. “Graham v. Richardson ... undermines [the state’s] position. In that ease, the Court considered an Arizona statute that imposed a durational residency requirement for welfare benefits on aliens but not on citizens. Like the New York statute challenged here, the Arizona statute served to discriminate only within the class of aliens: Aliens who met the durational residency requirement were entitled to welfare benefits. The Court nonetheless subjected the statute to strict scrutiny and held it unconstitutional. The important points are that [the tuition assistance restriction] is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]his power and responsibility of the State applies, not only to the qualifications of voters, but also to persons holding state elective or important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions, for officers who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy perform functions that go to the heart of representative government. There ... is “where citizenship bears some rational relationship to the special demands of the particular position.””
    4 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.