Citation network
Vance Vs. Bradley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 1979
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 93 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Vance v. BradleySearch
-
U.S. 93 (1979) Vance v. BradleySearch
-
is to be used in determining whether this statute violates equal protection. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSearch
-
violates equal protection should be determined under the standard stated in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSearch
-
Firemen v. ChicagoSearch
-
Phillips Chemical Co. v. DumasSearch
-
San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
U. S. 471 , 397 U. S. 485 (1970), quoting Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Congress was unwise in not choosing a means more precisely related to its primary purpose is irrelevant. Califano v. JobstSearch
-
New Orleans v. DukesSearch
-
is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker. Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Schilb v. KuebelSearch
-
United States v. MarylandSearch
-
McGinnis v. RoysterSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Rast v. VanSearch
-
Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids the Federal Government to deny equal protection of the laws. E.g., Hampton v. MowSearch
-
Order, and Civil Service regulations. A single District Judge rejected these nonconstitutional claims, Bradley v. KissingerSearch
-
E.g., San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
Hughes v. AlexandriaSearch
-
less capable of performing their jobs than younger employees. I adhere to my view in Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. MurgiaSearch
-
Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
Smith v. TexasSearch
-
United States v. CaroleneSearch
-
San Antonio School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
California Bankers Assn. v. ShultzSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
about the characteristics of a particular class as substantial support for a legislative classification. See Califano v. GoldfarbSearch
-
is a sufficiently accurate predictor to justify the significant deprivations imposed by forced retirement. See Craig v. BorenSearch
-
age-based generalizations would jeopardize the quality of the Foreign Service. Cf. United States Dept. of Agriculture v. MurrySearch
-
ends, rather than begins, its inquiry by articulating the legislative goal of a competent Foreign Service. See Trimble v. GordonSearch
-
where accepting the ground advanced for affirmance would result in greater relief than was granted below. See FEA v. AlgonquinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Vance v. BradleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial