Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 810 P.2d 155 - State v. Anthony

State v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

1 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably State, Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Division v. Cosio (1993), Coghill v. Coghill (1992)

1 district · 34 state decisions

2101991200020102020decided

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 Zobel v. Williams · Guin v. Ha · State v. Erickson · State v. Alex · Isakson v. Rickey

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.

  1. “First, it must be determined ... what weight should be afforded the constitutional interest impaired by the challenged enactment. The nature of this interest is the most important variable in fixing the appropriate level of review .... Second, an examination must be undertaken of the purposes served by the challenged statute. Depending on the level of review determined, the state may be required to show only that its objectives were legitimate, at the low end of the continuum, or, at the high end of the scale, that the legislation was motivated by a compelling state interest. Third, an evaluation of the state’s interest in the particular means employed to further its goals must be undertaken.... At the low end of the sliding scale, we have held that a substantial relationship between means and ends is constitutionally adequate. At the higher end of the scale, the fit between the means and ends must be much closer. If the purpose can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative, the classification will be invalidated.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “All persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “fair and substantial relationship test does not require a perfect fit between a legislative classification and the government objective it is intended to further”); Wilson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 669 P.2d 569, 572 (Alaska 1983) (”
    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.