Beller v. Middendorf’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 788 · 1980
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 28 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 226 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Romer Governor of Colorado v. Evans (1996), Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985)
115 federal appellate · 28 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
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Perry v. Sindermann · Roe v. Wade · Paul v. Davis
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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When conduct, either by virtue of its inadequate foundation in the continuing traditions of our society or for some other reason, such as lack of connection with interests recognized as private and protected, is subject to some government regulation, then analysis under the substantive due process clause proceeds in much the same way as analysis under the lowest tier of equal protection scrutiny. A rational relation to a legitimate government interest will normally suffice to uphold the regulation. At the other extreme, where the government seriously intrudes into matters which lie at the core of interests which deserve due process protection, then the compelling state interest test employed in equal protection cases may be used by the Court to describe the appropriate due process analysis.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the importance of the government interests furthered, and to some extent the relative impracticality at this time of achieving the Government's goals by regulations which turn more precisely on the facts of an individual case, outweigh whatever heightened solicitude is appropriate for consensual private homosexual conduct.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“indicate that substantive due process scrutiny of a government regulation involves a case-by-case balancing”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.