green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1995 ·
…when the classification created by a state regulatory scheme neither infringes upon fundamental rights nor burdens an inherently suspect class, equal protection analysis requires that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reuters America, Inc. v. Sharp
(2×)
when the classification created by a state regulatory scheme neither infringes upon fundamental rights nor burdens an inherently suspect class, equal protection analysis requires that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew
(2×)
See Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos, 695 S.W.2d 556, 561 (Tex.1985) (citing Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350 , 235 S.W. 513 (1921)), appeal dism’d, 475 U.S. 1001 , 106 S.Ct. 1170 , 89 L.Ed.2d 290 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Orange County v. Ware
(2×)
See Trahan v. Trahan, 682 S.W.2d 332, 337 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.), appeal dism’d, 475 U.S. 1002 , 106 S.Ct. 1171 , 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Maderazo v. Archem Co.
(2×)
See Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos, 695 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Tex.1985), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 1001 , 106 S.Ct. 1170 , 89 L.Ed.2d 290 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Haynes v. McIntosh
See Trahan v. Trahan, 682 S.W.2d 332, 337 (Tex.App.—Austin 1984, no writ), cert, denied, 475 U.S. 1002 , 106 S.Ct. 1171 , 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kathleen D. Kirby v. Leon G. Mellenger
See generally Trahan v. Trahan, 682 S.W.2d 332, 334-36 (Tex.Ct.App.1984) (discussing McCarty and Congress’ subsequent action), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 1002 , 106 S.Ct. 1171 , 89 L.Ed.2d 291 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, B.F. Goodrich Co., Cleveland Pneumatic, Inc. And Air Treads, Inc., McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Continental Airlines, Inc., and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cleveland Pneumatic, Inc., Sargent Industries, Inc.
(2×)
See Geldermann & Co. v. Lane Processing, Inc., 527 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir.1975) (unconscionability doctrine unavailable to sophisticated investor), cited for this proposition in Perdue v. Crocker Nat'l Bank, 38 Cal.3d 913, 927 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 345, 355 , 702 P.2d 503, 513 (1985), appeal dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1170 , 89 L.Ed.2d 290 (1986); AMF Inc. v. Computer Automation, Inc., 573 F.Supp. 924, 930 (S.D.Ohio 1983) (applying California law) (unconscionability doctrine held inapplicable on summary judgment to contract between "large, sophisticated merchants").
discussed
Cited "see"
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
(2×)
See Geldermann & Co. v. Lane Processing, Inc., 527 F.2d 571, 576 (8th Cir.1975) (unconscionability doctrine unavailable to sophisticated investor), cited for this proposition in Perdue v. Crocker Nat'l Bank, 38 CaI.3d 913, 927, 216 Cal. Rptr. 345, 355 , 702 P.2d 503, 513 (1985), appeal dismissed, - U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1170 , 89 L.Ed.2d 290 (1986); AMF Inc. v. Computer Automation, Inc., 573 F.Supp. 924, 930 (S.D.Ohio 1983) (applying California law) (unconscionability doctrine held inapplicable on summary judgment to contract between "large, sophisticated merchants").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tobias v. University of Texas at Arlington
(2×)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 556 (1972); see also Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos, 695 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Tex.1985) (strictures of due process apply only to deprivation of interests protected by federal and state constitutions), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 1001 , 106 S.Ct. 1170 , 89 L.Ed.2d 290 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carter
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 85-1113.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1986.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2)
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.