Citation network
Kadrmas Vs. Dickinson Pub. Schs.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1988
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Kadrmas v. DickinsonSearch
-
Pub. Schs. - 487 U.S. 450 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Kadrmas v. DickinsonSearch
-
Pub. Schs., 487 U.S. 450 (1988) Kadrmas v. DickinsonSearch
-
are not estopped from raising an equal protection challenge to the statute that imposes that burden on them. Fahey v. MalloneeSearch
-
generally been applied only in cases that involved discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. Plyler v. DoeSearch
-
Herman v. MedicineSearch
-
Motion to Dismiss 1. Relying on Fahey v. MalloneeSearch
-
a statute simply because they are deriving some benefit Page 487 U. S. 457 from it. Cf. United States v. SanSearch
-
is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. See, e.g., San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
Lyng v. AutomobileSearch
-
wealthy and the poor should on that account alone be subjected to strict equal protection scrutiny. See, e.g., Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
which should trigger strict scrutiny when government interferes with an individual's access to it. See Papasan v. AllainSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
at 411 U. S. 16 , 411 U. S. 33 -36. Page 487 U. S. 459 Relying primarily on Plyler v. DoeSearch
-
been applied only in cases that involved discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. See, e.g., Clark v. JeterSearch
-
Women v. HoganSearch
-
not withhold certain especially important services from those who are unable to pay for them. Appellants cite Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Little v. StreaterSearch
-
that required indigents to pay a filing fee for appellate review of adverse welfare benefits decisions. Ortwein v. SchwabSearch
-
limited in its application to a particular geographical or political subdivision of the state.' Fort Smith Light Co. v. PavingSearch
-
the statute's classification 'rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective.' McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
Kotch v. BoardSearch
-
Holt Civic Club v. TuscaloosaSearch
-
of demonstrating that the challenged statute is both arbitrary and irrational. Hodel v. IndianaSearch
-
Appellants also suggest that their position is supported by Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
us. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting. In San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Cf. Bullock v. CarterSearch
-
than upon identifying and carefully analyzing the real interests at stake. Page 487 U. S. 468 Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
Selective Service System v. MinnesotaSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
status. This Court has determined that classifications based on wealth are not automatically suspect. See, e.g., Maher v. RoeSearch
-
Such classifications, however, have a measure of special constitutional significance. See, e.g., McDonald v. BoardSearch
-
Harper v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial