Lamb v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
456 F.2d 18 · 1972
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Craig v. Boren (1976), 88 Wash. 2d 221 - State v. Wanrow (1977)
40 federal appellate · 46 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Younger v. Harris · Baker v. Carr · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson · McLaughlin v. Florida · Moore v. State of Missouri
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)his ruling shall not apply retroactively.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ruhm v. State · Bromley v. Crisp““The term ‘child’ means a male person of the age of sixteen (16) years and a female person under the age of eighteen (18) years.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Lamb v. State, supra, is not helpful in our search for a rational justification for the disparity in treatment between 16-18 year old males and 16-18 year old females under the statute. ‘Demonstrated facts of life’ could mean many things. The ‘demonstrated facts’ which the Court relied upon are not spelled out. They are not obvious or apparent. We therefore cannot weigh them to determine if they ‘might suffice to characterize the classification as reasonable rather than arbitrary and invidious.’ McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. [184] at 191, 85 S.Ct. [283] at 288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964). “We have not been presented with a logical constitutional justification for the discrimination inherent in 10 Okl.St.Ann., § 1101(a). “The State, in its brief and oral argument has simply relied upon the unexplained ‘demonstrated facts of life.’ Because the purpose of the disparity in the age classification between 16-18 year old males and 16-18 year old females has not been demonstrated, we hold that 10 Okl.St.Ann., § 1101(a) is violative of the equal protection clause. This ruling shall not apply retroactively.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Matthews
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.