Kite v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. States are accorded wide latitude in the regulation of their local economies under their police powers, and rational distinctions may be made with substantially less than mathematical exactitude. Legislatures may implement their program step by step, ... in such economic areas, adopting regulations that only partially ameliorate a perceived evil and deferring complete elimination of the evil to future regulations.... In short, the judiciary may not sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines ...; in the local economic sphere, it is only the invidious discrimination, the wholly arbitrary act, which cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Home Depot, Inc. v. Guste

2. “[Decisions by the Supreme Court declaring that parents have no constitutional right to educate their children in private segregated academies, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 , 96 S.Ct. 2586 , 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), or to demand approval before the administration of corporal punishment ' in school, Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 , 97 S.Ct. 1401 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 ( 1977), or to exercise an absolute veto power over a minor child’s decision to terminate a pregnancy via abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 , 96 S.Ct. 2831 , 49 L.Ed.2d 788 (1976), clearly signal that parental authority falls short of being constitutionally absolute. Confronted with these situations which, at'first blush, appear to rest at the heart of parental decision making, the Supreme Court refrained from clothing parental judgment with a constitutional mantle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 231 F. Supp. 2d 520 - Jesuit College Preparatory School v. Judy

3. “In such a situation, ‘the burden is not upon the state to establish the rationality of its restriction, but is upon the challenger to show that the restriction is wholly arbitrary.’ ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Irby v. Sullivan