Commonwealth v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “driving an automobile is not a fundamental constitutional right, but a legitimately regulated privilege.... Thus, the review of this matter under a rational basis analysis is appropriate because the legislation in question does not infringe on a fundamental right, nor does it impact on a suspect class negatively.” Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 , 401 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1991) (challenged provisions creating a presumption of intoxication at .10% blood alcohol content”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robinson · Cornelison v. Commonwealth

2. “[i]n areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against an equal protection challenge if ... any reasonably conceivable state of facts ... could provide a rational basis for the classification.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zuckerman v. Bevin · Weiand v. Board of Trustees of Kentucky Retirement Systems

3. “equal protection analysis requires strict scrutiny of legislative classification only when the classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. Unless a classification requires some form of heightened review because it jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right or categorizes on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic, the equal protection clause of the federal constitution requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. [Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. ] Murgia, [ 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976) ]. Here, the statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 , 112 S.Ct. 2326 , 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). Under the rational basis test, a classification must be upheld against an equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993), citing F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 , 113 S.Ct. 2096 , 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perkins v. Commonwealth