Campbell v. City of Allen Park’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 576 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2014
18 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Thornhill v. Alabama · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Zablocki v. Redhail · Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In essence plaintiffs assert that because the Supreme Court has recognized a right to travel and a right to marry as “fundamental” rights, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses require the use of particularized objective standards in granting or withholding any waiver of the residency requirement so as to minimize any interference with those rights. The plaintiffs might have a point if their case were based on the First Amendment. This is not a First Amendment case, however, and we would not be justified in proceeding as if it were. The Supreme Court has stated that any durational residence requirement impinges to some extent on the right to travel, but only those which are penalties upon the exercise of the constitutional right of interstate travel are unconstitutional. ... The failure of the City of Allen Park to establish objective particularized standards for denying exemptions from the residency requirement does not ... penalize interstate travel. The city’s denial of the exemption was [thus] not irrational, and we are unwilling to hold it unconstitutional.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts sit to decide live, current controversies, and not to participate on constitutional questions that have become academic as far as the litigants are concerned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.