State v. Cantrell’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2001
18 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 Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · McLaughlin v. Florida · West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · District of Columbia v. Alice Brooke · Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance v. Harrison
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * must be free to remedy parts of a problem, or to recognize degrees of a problem and to formulate solutions in the areas it determines to be more in need or more readily corrected than others... . [T]o require either that the legislature remedy at once all aspects of a particular problem or that it do nothing would emasculate the plenary power expressly granted by the state constitution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Some discrimination is inherent in any legislative attempt to limit the number of retail outlets for liquor by the drink, and because any legislation is presumed to be constitutional [footnote omitted], a mere showing of discrimination has been held insufficient to defeat the regulatory scheme. [Footnote omitted] Nevertheless, to comply with the equal protection requirements of the federal and state constitutions, the discriminatory classification must reflect a reasonably conceivable, legitimate public purpose, [footnote omitted] and it must relate reasonably to that ascribed purpose. [Footnote omitted] Because a legitimate public purpose appears, prima facie, from the language of I.C. § 23-901, the issue is narrowed to whether the . . . classification is reasonably related to that purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is well settled under the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that a state police regulation is, like any other law, subject to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that the appellant is in the liquor business does not release the state from the restrictions on its regulatory powers above referred to. It may authorize the state to impose more stringent regulations against those engaged in that business than are imposed against those engaged in other callings, “but it affords no justification for discriminating between persons similarly situated who may be, or may desire to become, engaged in that calling.” [Citation omitted.]”
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.