Stiles v. Blunt’s Empirical Analysis
912 F.2d 260 · 1990
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 54 Cal. 3d 492 - Legislature v. Eu (1991), More v. Farrier (1993)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 Singleton v. Wulff · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Shapiro v. Thompson · Plyler v. Doe
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are three primary levels of equal protection review. The most deferential level of review is the rational relationship test, which is typically used to analyze economic regulations not involving suspect classes or fundamental rights. Under this test, a challenged classification will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.... “Strict scrutiny” is the most exacting standard of equal protection review. Strict scrutiny review is applied when a challenged classification affects a fundamental constitutional right or a suspect class. Under this standard, we will uphold a classification only if it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest.... [T]he Supreme Court ... has on occasion applied what can be characterized as an intermediate level of review to classifications involving gender, alienage, or legitimacy. Under this standard, the challenged classification must be substantially related to important governmental objectives.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant has presented no evidence that the state legislature intended to change the sensible and time-honored method of calculating age when it enacted section 1.205. Age has always been calculated from the date of birth, which, unlike the precise date of conception, can be determined with certainty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Lee · State v. Crider“[t]hat these reasons at least arguably provide a rational basis for the mandatory retirement of judges is sufficient for section 6(C) to survive under the constitutional standard we have described”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.