State v. Wylie’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Ravin v. State (1975), State v. Erickson (1978)
1 district · 35 state decisions
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 Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Shapiro v. Thompson
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“It does not appear, however, that the employment preference furthers the purpose of reducing unemployment except by deterring the in-migration of persons from other states. The personnel rules in question do not increase the number of available state employment opportunities, but simply limit the universe of persons who may compete for them. To the extent that the personnel rules "lower unemployment” by fencing out competition from other states, the rules impermissibly discriminate against persons who have recently traveled to the state.... The personnel rules creating an employment preference are poorly "tailored” to achieve the objective of lower state unemployment. There are certainly available to the state other means for lower unemployment which impose a lesser burden on the constitutionally protected right to interstate travel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robison v. Francis“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. . [The] right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. Bailey
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.