Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 566 U.S. 673 - Armour v. City of Indianapolis

Armour v. City of Indianapolis’s Empirical Analysis

566 U.S. 673 · 2012

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 108 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. · City of New Orleans v. Dukes · Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. Doe · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · United States v. Carolene Products Co.

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

  1. “[A] classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines ... cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]hose challenging the legislative judgment must convince the court that the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he Constitution does not require the [government] to draw the perfect line nor even to draw a line superior to some other line it might have drawn. It requires only that the line actually drawn be a rational line.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.