Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zobel Vs. Williams

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 1982

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

56 entries 8 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. Dunn Vs. Blumstein US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1972
  2. Toomer Vs. Witsell US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
    Distinguished
  3. Shapiro Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1969
  4. United States Vs. Guest US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1966
  5. Vlandis Vs. Kline US Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1973
  6. Sosna Vs. Iowa US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1975
  7. Fusari Vs. Steinberg US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1975
  8. Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. Vs. Rizzo US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1976
  9. U.S. 55 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Zobel v. Williams
    Search
  10. U.S. 55 (1982) Zobel v. Williams
    Search
  11. increasing number of classes of concededly bona fide residents based on how long they have lived in the State. Sosna v. Iowa
    Search
  12. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  13. and Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  14. The Alaska dividend distribution law is quite unlike the durational residency requirements we examined in Sosna v. Iowa
    Search
  15. law should be subjected to the higher level of scrutiny applied to the durational residency requirements in Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  16. supra, and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  17. argument was made and rejected in Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  18. Emphasis added.) Similarly, in Vlandis v. Kline
    Search
  19. it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted the legislation without the invalid portion. Buckley v. Page
    Search
  20. United States v. Jackson
    Search
  21. Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation
    Search
  22. is constitutionally unacceptable. Vlandis v. Kline
    Search
  23. Court, again by a 3-2 vote, held that this statute violated the State Constitution's equal protection clause. Williams v. Zobel
    Search
  24. durational residency cases, we examined state laws which imposed waiting periods on access to divorce courts, Sosna v. Iowa
    Search
  25. eligibility for free nonemergency medical care, Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  26. voting rights, Dunn v. Blumstein
    Search
  27. and welfare assistance, Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  28. only against those who have recently exercised the right to travel, as did the statute involved in Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  29. to another has long been accepted, yet both the nature and the source of that right have remained obscure. See Jones v. Helms
    Search
  30. in equal protection terms, state distinctions between newcomers and longer term residents. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  31. to inhibit migration into the State without encountering insurmountable constitutional difficulties. See Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  32. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  33. Starns v. Malkerson
    Search
  34. by this Court is not to be read as an adoption of the reasoning supporting the judgment under review. Fusari v. Steinberg
    Search
  35. U. S. 379 , 419 U. S. 391 (1975) (concurring opinion). See also Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo
    Search
  36. U. S. 651 , 415 U. S. 671 (1974). Moreover, as we pointed out in Vlandis v. Kline
    Search
  37. of Art. IV. But equally plausible, I think, is the argument that the right resides in the Commerce Clause, see Edwards v. California
    Search
  38. Id. at 394 U. S. 630 -631, quoting United States v. Guest
    Search
  39. it reflects not the structure of the Federal Union, but the idea of constitutionally protected equality. See Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  40. and attachment may bear some rational relationship to a very limited number of legitimate state purposes. Cf. Chimento v. Stark
    Search
  41. our cases leave no doubt that it will trigger intensified equal protection scrutiny. See, e.g., Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  42. Equal Protection Clause itself, however, declares this objective illegitimate. Instead, as a full reading of Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search
  43. U. S. 618 (1969), and Vlandis v. Kline
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Zobel v. Williams
    Search
  45. the State. Sosna v. Iowa
    Search
  46. and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  47. Buckley v. Page
    Search
  48. Williams v. Zobel
    Search
  49. See Jones v. Helms
    Search
  50. See Shapiro v. Thompson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial