Martinez Ex Rel. Morales v. Bynum’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 37 district · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 395 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (1984), Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez (1986)
90 federal appellate · 37 district · 113 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Shapiro v. Thompson · Milliken v. Meyer · Sosna v. Iowa
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 395 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A bona fide residence requirement, appropriately defined and uniformly applied, furthers the substantial state interest in assuring that services provided for its residents are enjoyed only by residents. Such a requirement with respect to attendance in public free schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It does not burden or penalize the constitutional right of interstate travel, for any person is free to move to a State and to establish residence there. A bona fide residence requirement simply requires that the person does establish residence before demanding the services that are restricted to residents.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“A bona fide residence requirement implicates no “suspect” classification, and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny. Indeed, there is nothing invidiously discriminatory about a bona fide residence requirement if it is uniformly applied. Thus the question is simply whether there is a rational basis for it. [Id. at 328 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. at 1842 n. 7, 75 L.Ed.2d at 887 n. 7.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]itizenship is synonymous with domicile, and the domicile of an individual is his true, fixed and permanent home and place of habitation. It is the place to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.... An individual can change domicile instantly. To do so, two things are required: [h]e must take up residence at the new domicile and he must intend to remain there.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.