Sammon’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Clark v. McDonald's Corp. (2003), 996 F. Supp. 409 - Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown Township (1998)
1 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Roe v. Wade
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a statute withstands a substantive due process challenge if the state identifies a legitimate state interest that the legislature could rationally conclude was served by the statute.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no indication that the aspiring midwives possibly could obtain a license or a physician’s indorsement without first going through the 1800 hours of instruction. Requiring these women to apply for a license or to approach physicians asking for indorsements before going through the required training — as the district court appears to suggest— accordingly would serve no purpose. Litigants are not required to make such futile gestures to establish ripeness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“second guess the legislature on the factual assumptions or policy considerations underlying the statute. If the legislature has assumed that people will react to the statute in a given way or that it will serve the desired goal, the court is not authorized to determine whether people have reacted in the way predicted or whether the desired goal has been served.”
2 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.