State v. Antonich’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2014
3 federal appellate · 2 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 Toomer v. Witsell · Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont. · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc. · Hicklin v. Orbeck
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"An examination of a state enactment to determine its validity under the privileges-and-immunities clause involves a two-step analysis. First, the reviewing court must determine whether the statute burdens a fundamental right or activity, since only those `privileges' and `immunities' which bear upon the concept of interstate harmony fall within the scope and purpose of the clause. United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 , ___, 104 S.Ct. 1020, 1027 , 79 L.Ed.2d 249, 258-259 (1984); Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371, 383-388 , 98 S.Ct. 1852, 1860-1862 , 56 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978); Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395-396 , 68 S.Ct. 1156, 1161-1162 , 92 L.Ed. 1460 (1948). Second, the court must examine the reasons for the discriminatory treatment to determine their validity and their relation to the degree of discrimination imposed by the statute. This portion of the test was developed by the United States Supreme Court in Toomer v. Witsell, supra: "`Like many other constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause is not an absolute. It does bar discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States. But it does not preclude disparity of treatment in the many situations where there are perfectly valid independent reasons for it. Thus the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`* * * unless there is something to indicate that non-citizens constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed.' [ Toomer v. Witsell, supra,] 334 U.S. at 398 , 68 S.Ct. at 1163 ." State v. Antonich, supra, 694 P.2d at 62 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“offends the privileges-and-immunities clause unless a close link exists between valid reasons for the Act and the discrimination practiced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.