23 Cited authorities

Washington v. Davis
426 U.S. 229 (1976) Cited 3,271 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney
442 U.S. 256 (1979) Cited 2,057 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause is implicated only when "a state legislatur[e] selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part `because of,' not merely `in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group"
N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama
357 U.S. 449 (1958) Cited 1,953 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs" may violate the First Amendment
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno
413 U.S. 528 (1973) Cited 639 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that nothing more than "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group" violates the Equal Protection Clause
Bates v. Little Rock
361 U.S. 516 (1960) Cited 535 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that ordinances mandating disclosure of organizations' membership lists violated the First Amendment as applied where "substantial uncontroverted evidence" indicated that people identified as members of the organizations were harassed and threatened, and fear of community hostility resulting from disclosure caused reductions in membership
Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
458 U.S. 457 (1982) Cited 192 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional the state initiative that blocked the Seattle School District's use of mandatory busing to remedy de facto segregation
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm
372 U.S. 539 (1963) Cited 296 times
Holding that "an investigation which intrudes into the area of constitutionally protected rights of speech" is valid so long as (Continued) there is a "substantial relation" between the information sought and a compelling state interest
Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education
458 U.S. 527 (1982) Cited 89 times
Finding a restriction could still be deemed "unconstitutional if motivated by a discriminatory purpose."
Grandbouche v. Clancy
825 F.2d 1463 (10th Cir. 1987) Cited 144 times
Holding that question of survivorship is determined by looking to Colorado law
South Dakota Farm Bureau Inc. v. Hazeltine
340 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2003) Cited 81 times
Holding that companies that lost business as a result of a law that discriminated against out-of-state entities had standing, even though the law did not discriminate against the plaintiffs
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,578 times 650 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,064 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause is implicated only when "a state legislatur[e] selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part `because of,' not merely `in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group"

Holding that "[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs" may violate the First Amendment

Holding that nothing more than "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group" violates the Equal Protection Clause

Holding unconstitutional the state initiative that blocked the Seattle School District's use of mandatory busing to remedy de facto segregation

Holding that "an investigation which intrudes into the area of constitutionally protected rights of speech" is valid so long as (Continued) there is a "substantial relation" between the information sought and a compelling state interest

Finding a restriction could still be deemed "unconstitutional if motivated by a discriminatory purpose."

Holding that question of survivorship is determined by looking to Colorado law

Holding that companies that lost business as a result of a law that discriminated against out-of-state entities had standing, even though the law did not discriminate against the plaintiffs

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party