Arceneaux v. Treen’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.2d 128 · 1982
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Gray v. Lucas (1982), Brennan v. Stewart (1988)
21 federal appellate · 3 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 · Perry v. Sindermann · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“offended only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the state's objective.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike_ [C]ourts have themselves devised standards for determining the validity of- state legislation or other official action that is challenged as denying equal protection. The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.... The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, alien-age, or national origin.... [T]hese laws are subject to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state inter-est_ Legislative classifications based on gender also call for a heightened standard of review_ A gender classification fails unless it is substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) is clearly set forth by the legislature: It is the purpose of this Part to implement a policy which will serve to maintain a high level of trust and confidence by the general citizenry in public officials, employees, and governmental decisions of the government of this state and of its political subdivisions by defining and regulating dual employment and by defining, regulating, and prohibiting dual officeholding. LSA-R.S. 42:61(B). By its terms, the purpose of the law is remedial. It is designed to correct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foti v. Holliday
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.