82 Ill. 2d 116 - Illinois Housing Development Authority v. Van Meter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 428 Ill. Dec. 818 - City of Chi. v. Haywood · 103 Ill. 2d 483 - Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove

2. ““The * test in assessing an equal protection claim is to determine if the [statute] * * * operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class or infringes upon a fundamental right. (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), 411 U.S. 1, 17 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 33 , 93 S. Ct. 1278, 1288 .) If the legislation in question creates a ‘suspect classification,’ such as race (Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, 11 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1017 , 87 S. Ct. 1817, 1823 ), alienage (Graham v. Richardson (1971), 403 U.S. 365, 371-72 , 29 L. Ed. 2d 534,541-42 , 91 S. Ct. 1848, 1851-52 ), national origin (Oyama v. California (1948), 332 U.S. 633, 646 , 92 L. Ed. 249 , 259, 68 S. Ct. 269, 275 ), or infringes upon a fundamental right, such as the right to travel (Shapiro v. Thompson (1964), 394 U.S. 618, 634-35 , 22 L. Ed. 2d 600, 615 , 89 S. Ct. 1322, 1331-32 ), the right to vote (Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), 383 U.S. 663, 670 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 169, 174 , 86 S. Ct. 1079, 1083 ), or the right to fair treatment in the criminal process (Douglas v. California (1963), 372 U.S. 353, 355-56 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 811, 813-14 , 83 S. Ct. 814, 815-16 ), then the statute must promote a compelling or overriding State interest. If a suspect classification or fundamental right is not found, the legislation simply must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Dandridge v. Williams (1970), 397 U.S. 471, 485-87 , 25 L. Ed. 2d 491, 501-03 , 90 S. Ct. 1153, 116”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 101 Ill. App. 3d 107 - Happel v. Mecklenburger · 339 Ill. App. 3d 194 - Puffer-Hefty School v. Du Page Regional Bd.

3. ““The first test in assessing an equal protection claim is to determine if [the legislation] *** operates to the disadvantage of a suspect class or infringes upon a fundamental right. [Citation.] *** If a suspect classification or fundamental right is not found, the legislation simply must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. [Citation.] Under the traditional equal protection standards utilized by both the Federal and State courts, a legislative classification will be upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose. [Citations.] Thus, the inquiry shifts to an analysis of the legislative purpose and a subsequent determination whether the legislative classification is rationally related to that purpose. [Citation.] Under traditional concepts of equal protection, i.e., when a rational-basis test is used, a legislative classification is presumed valid. [Citations.] The burden of rebutting the presumptive validity of the classification rests upon the party challenging its constitutionality. [Citation.] Finally, a statutory classification will not be declared unconstitutional ‘if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ ” Van Meter, 82 Ill. 2d at 119-22 , 412 N.E.2d at 152-54 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 218 Ill. App. 3d 406 - Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp.