Cook v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.3d 42 · 2008
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Windsor v. United States (2012), Bostic v. Schaefer (2014)
22 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 654 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Roe v. Wade · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Califano v. Sanders · United States v. Salerno
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A law survives rational basis review so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 , 55 (1st Cir.2008) (citing Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 , 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 2326 , 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Williams [v. Attorney General of Ala.], 378 F.3d at 1252 (Barkett, J., dissenting); Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 271 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1221 (C.D.Cal.2003); Doe v. Miller, 298 F.Supp.2d 844, 871 (S.D.Iowa 2004), rev’d on other grounds, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.2005); Hudson Valley Black Press v. IRS, 307 F.Supp.2d 543, 548 (S.D.N.Y.2004); see also Donald H.J. Hermann, Pulling the Fig Leaf Off the Right of Privacy: Sex and the Constitution, 54 DePaul L.Rev. 909, 969 (2005); Laurence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas: The Fundamental Right that Dare Not Speak Its Name, 117 Harv. L.Rev. 1893, 1917 (2004).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) [t]hat the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts ... (2) [t]hat the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding ... that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.””
1 later decision 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.