71 Cal. 2d 954 - People v. Belous’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 13 district · 152 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Roe v. Wade (1973), Doe v. Bolton (1973)
8 federal appellate · 13 district · 152 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Baker v. Carr · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`right of privacy' or `liberty' in matters related to marriage, family, and sex”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`substantially or reasonably' necessary to preserve the life of the mother,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although we may assume that the law was valid when first enacted, the validity of a law in 1850 does not resolve the issue of whether the law is constitutionally valid today. [Citations omitted] Constitutional concepts are not static. Our United States Supreme Court said, regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “We agree, of course, with Mr. Justice Holmes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ‘does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.’ [Citation] Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause is not shackled to the political theory of a particular era. In determining what lines are unconstitutionally discriminatory, we have never been confined to historic notions of equality, any more than we have restricted due process to a fixed catalogue of what was at a given time deemed to be authorized to practice surgery, carried out the limits of fundamental rights. * * * ” (Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections (1966) 383 U.S. 663, 669 , 86 S.Ct. 1079, 1082 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 ; see. also, Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 727 , 198 P.2d 17 ; Galyon v. Municipal Court, 229 Cal.App.2d 667, 671-672 , 40 Cal.Rptr. 446 , and cases cited therein [“[A] statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied.”]. See also, Means, supra, 14 N.Y.L.F. 411, 514-515.)”
2 later decisions 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.