Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sosna v. Iowagreen2 sentences1980But Shapiro and Maricopa County explicitly left open the possibility that there might be durational residency requirements which do not trigger strict scrutiny because they would not "penalize" the exercise of the *455 right of interstate migration; and the strict scrutiny analysis was not applied in the most recent United States Supreme Court pronouncement on the subject, Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 , 95 S.Ct. 553 , 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). 1980But Shapiro and Maricopa County explicitly left open the possibility that there might be durational residency requirements which do not trigger strict scrutiny because they would not "penalize" the exercise of the *455 right of interstate migration; and the strict scrutiny analysis was not applied in the most recent United States Supreme Court pronouncement on the subject, Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 , 95 S.Ct. 553 , 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). | 1 | 2 |
Dunn v. Blumsteingreen2 sentences1980In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972), the court struck down a one-year durational residency requirement for voting in state elections, applying a strict scrutiny standard. 1980In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972), the court struck down a one-year durational residency requirement for voting in state elections, applying a strict scrutiny standard. | 1 | 2 |
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen2 sentences2022The court concluded that the minimal burden 65 476 U.S. at 579. -20- 7609 imposed does not rise to the level of discrimination, that the statute does not promote economic protectionism, and that the statute is facially neutral. 2022The court concluded that the minimal burden 65 476 U.S. at 579 . -20- 7609 imposed does not rise to the level of discrimination, that the statute does not promote economic protectionism, and that the statute is facially neutral. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaskagreen1 sentence2019See State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska , 35 P.3d 30 , 40-41 (Alaska 2001) (holding that the "physical, psychological, and economic implications" of having an abortion implicated privacy rights and thus warranted a strict scrutiny analysis for a statute requiring minors to obtain parental consent or judicial authorization before having an abortion); Messerli v. State , 626 P.2d 81 , 88 (Alaska 1980) (holding that possibility of "economic or other[ ]" reprisals could justify regulations protecting anonymity). | 1 | 1 |
International Organization Of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Eleanor Andrewsgreen1 sentence2007See Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Andrews, 831 F.2d 843 , 846-47 (9th Cir.1987) (rejecting strict scrutiny review of Alaska statute providing that resident employees of state ferry system would receive cost-of-living differential). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Livingston v. Ewinggreen1 sentence2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 368121green2 sentences2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. 2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Zobelgreen2 sentences1984See Zobel II, 619 P.2d at 454-55. 1984See Zobel II, 619 P.2d at 454-55. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ericksongreen1 sentence1984State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1, 11-12 (Alaska 1978). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Lalli v. Lalligreen2 sentences1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). 1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. Borengreen2 sentences1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). 1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Orville E. Stifel, II v. William F. Hopkins, Esq.green1 sentence1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi | 1 | 1 |
Groh v. Egangreen2 sentences1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi 1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Zobelgreen1 sentence1980What is there to prevent those who would receive maximum benefits under this statute from making similar demands on the legislature?" [39] See Williams v. Zobel, 619 P.2d 422, 435-37 (Alaska 1980) (Rabinowitz, C.J., concurring). [40] Were the permanent fund earnings distribution payments tied to "basic necessities," the rule of Shapiro v. Thompson would apply; but such is not the case. [41] Were we continuing to adhere to the boarder language in the pre- Erickson opinions dealing with the right of interstate migration, they might well be dispositive; but we have elected not to apply the strict | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tafoya v. City of Albuquerquegreen1 sentence2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 368121green2 sentences2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. 2003But see Tafoya v. City of Albuquerque, 751 F.Supp. 1527, 1530-31 (D.N.M.1990) (declaring unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny analysis a similar city ordinance in Albuquerque limiting vending within Old Town to Indians). [42] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1114-15. [43] Id. at 1113. [44] Id. at 1114. [45] See id. at 1112. [46] Id. at 1113 (emphasis added). [47] Id. at 1112; Livingston v. Ewing, 455 F.Supp. 825, 827-28 (D.N.M.1978). [48] Livingston, 601 F.2d at 1115. [49] Krueth v. Indep. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rollins v. Ulmer
green
1 sentence2019Rollins v. Ulmer , 15 P.3d 749 , 752-53 (Alaska 2001) (concluding statute establishing medical marijuana registry adequately protected registrants' privacy). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Messerli v. State
green
1 sentence2019See State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska , 35 P.3d 30 , 40-41 (Alaska 2001) (holding that the "physical, psychological, and economic implications" of having an abortion implicated privacy rights and thus warranted a strict scrutiny analysis for a statute requiring minors to obtain parental consent or judicial authorization before having an abortion); Messerli v. State , 626 P.2d 81 , 88 (Alaska 1980) (holding that possibility of "economic or other[ ]" reprisals could justify regulations protecting anonymity). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re TW
green
1 sentence1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta | 1 | 1997–1997 |
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van De Kamp
green
2 sentences1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta 1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hope v. Perales
green
2 sentences1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta 1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers
green
2 sentences1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta 1997Rights v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 252 , 172 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 625 P.2d 779 (1981) (striking down legislation restricting public funding of abortions as unconstitutional under the state’s constitutional privacy guarantee); American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp, 214 Cal.App.3d 831 , 263 Cal.Rptr. 46 (1989) (upholding an injunction preventing implementation of restrictions on abortion rights of minors, requiring a compelling state interest before invasion of minors' privacy rights); In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989) (reaffirming the right'to choose to terminate a pregnancy as a fundamental sta | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.
green
2 sentences1993Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 472 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 728 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981). 1993Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 472 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 728 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Reynolds v. Sims
green
2 sentences1983The relevant portions of the superior court's final judgment are set out in the appendix to this opinion. [21] See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523-24 , reh'g denied, 379 U.S. 870 , 85 S.Ct. 12 , 13 L.Ed.2d 76 (1964). [22] In regard to our approval of the means employed, see supra note 20, concerning the justification for the Board's focusing only on the military as opposed to fish processors and lumber industry personnel. 1983The relevant portions of the superior court's final judgment are set out in the appendix to this opinion. [21] See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523-24 , reh'g denied, 379 U.S. 870 , 85 S.Ct. 12 , 13 L.Ed.2d 76 (1964). [22] In regard to our approval of the means employed, see supra note 20, concerning the justification for the Board's focusing only on the military as opposed to fish processors and lumber industry personnel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Dane v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Concord
green
2 sentences1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi 1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Ryan v. New York
green
1 sentence1983The relevant portions of the superior court's final judgment are set out in the appendix to this opinion. [21] See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523-24 , reh'g denied, 379 U.S. 870 , 85 S.Ct. 12 , 13 L.Ed.2d 76 (1964). [22] In regard to our approval of the means employed, see supra note 20, concerning the justification for the Board's focusing only on the military as opposed to fish processors and lumber industry personnel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McKenna v. McKenna
green
2 sentences1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi 1983See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973) (prisoner not precluded from establishing domicile because his presence in the jurisdiction was originally compelled); Dane v. Board of Registrars of Concord, et al., 374 Mass. 152 , 371 N.E.2d 1358 (1978) (prisoners entitled to rebut presumption that by reason of their involuntary presence they have retained their former domicile); McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45 , 422 A.2d 668 (1980) (no irrebuttable presumption that prisoner retains former domicile). [17] Groh v. Egan, 526 P.2d 863, 874 (Alaska 1974). [18] Id. at 870 . [19] The superi | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McDonald v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). 1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Loden v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). 1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Craig v. Boren
green
2 sentences1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). 1983Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197-98 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 1124 , 97 S.Ct. 1161 , 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977); see also Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 , 99 S.Ct. 518, 523 , 58 L.Ed.2d 503, 509 (1978). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Shapiro v. Thompson green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Hicklin v. Orbeck green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hicklin v. Orbeck
green
2 sentences1980We employed the strict scrutiny analysis which we had used in State v. Wylie, supra. dictum in Hicklin, we said, referring to the Maricopa case, supra, that, “[w]e have never used this ‘basic necessities’ reasoning.” 565 P.2d at 163 . 1980In Hicklin v. Orbeck, 565 P.2d 159 (Alaska 1977), reversed on other grounds, 437 U.S. 518 , 98 S.Ct. 2482 , 57 L.Ed.2d 397 (1978), we invalidated a durational residency requirement as a prerequisite to obtaining jobs on the Alaska pipeline project. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Vlandis v. Kline green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Socialist Workers Party v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Gerald Rose v. Illinois State Board of Elections green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Wylie green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Socialist Workers Party v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Castner v. City of Homer green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.