Equal Protection Clause (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Equal Protection Clause" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
26th place
20th place
2nd place
2nd place
1st place
1st place
3rd place
3rd place
696th place
428th place
5th place
5th place
6th place
6th place
565th place
460th place
580th place
462nd place
11th place
8th place
916th place
706th place
70th place
63rd place
1,478th place
868th place
702nd place
520th place
low place
low place
332nd place
246th place
low place
low place
4,784th place
3,078th place
low place
low place
703rd place
501st place
low place
low place
230th place
214th place
18th place
17th place
731st place
638th place
low place
8,527th place
1,648th place
1,137th place
1,429th place
932nd place
102nd place
76th place
2,302nd place
1,389th place
2,120th place
1,328th place
3,163rd place
1,731st place
5,670th place
3,086th place
179th place
183rd place
1,476th place
1,056th place

archive.org

bc.edu

lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu

berkeley.edu

scholarship.law.berkeley.edu

bloomberglaw.com

www2.bloomberglaw.com

books.google.com

  • Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 978-1-4381-0991-6. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. The equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.
  • Glidden, William. Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States, p. 79 (Lexington Books 2013).
  • Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law--An American History, p. 253 (Palgrave Macmillan, Jan 17, 2004). The four of the original thirteen states are New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Id.
  • Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, pp. 321–322 (HarperCollins 2002).
  • Finkelman, Paul. "Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Antebellum Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment", in The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, p. 19 (Eric Anderson and Alfred A. Moss, eds., LSU Press, 1991).
  • Wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?, p. 27 (CQ PRESS 2013).
  • McInerney, Daniel. A Traveller's History of the USA, p. 212 (Interlink Books, 2001).
  • Kerber, Linda. No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship, p. 133 (Macmillan, 1999).
  • Hymowitz, Carol and Weissman, Michaele. A History of Women in America, p. 128 (Random House Digital, 2011).

bu.edu

scholarship.law.bu.edu

cornell.edu

law.cornell.edu

  • "Equal Protection". Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

doi.org

findlaw.com

constitution.findlaw.com

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

fordham.edu

ir.lawnet.fordham.edu

georgialegalaid.org

  • "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from the original on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. The basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

harvard.edu

civilrightsproject.harvard.edu

  • For data and analysis, see Orfield (July 2001). "Schools More Separate" (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2008-07-16.

jstor.org

justia.com

supreme.justia.com

  • "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
  • "Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-30.
  • "Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
  • Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
  • However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. ISSN 0017-8322. Archived from the original on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
  • Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). John C. Bancroft was a former railway company president. In the summary of the case Bancroft wrote that the Court declared that it did not need to hear argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause protected corporations, because "we are all of the opinion that it does." Id. at 396. Chief Justice Morrison Waite announced from the bench that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applied to corporations: "We are all of the opinion that it does." The background and developments from this utterance are treated in H. Graham, Everyman's Constitution--Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Conspiracy Theory, and American Constitutionalism (1968), chs. 9, 10, and pp. 566-84. Justice Hugo Black, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938), and Justice William O. Douglas, in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949), have disagreed that corporations are persons for equal protection purposes.
  • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 598 (2003), at page 2482

launchknowledge.com

law.com

m.law.com

  • Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Justice Kennedy's World Archived 2013-07-09 at the Wayback Machine", The National Law Journal (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."

loc.gov

loc.gov

memory.loc.gov

northwestern.edu

scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu

pitt.edu

jurist.law.pitt.edu

reclaimdemocracy.org

sagepub.com

eus.sagepub.com

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

ssrn.com

papers.ssrn.com

  • For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review. 82: 151. ISSN 0021-0552. SSRN 1121505.

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

typepad.com

left2right.typepad.com

uchicago.edu

chicagounbound.uchicago.edu

upenn.edu

law.upenn.edu

scholarship.law.upenn.edu

usconstitution.net

utexas.edu

villanova.edu

digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu

web.archive.org

  • Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 978-1-4381-0991-6. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. The equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.
  • "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from the original on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. The basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.
  • "Equal Protection". Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
  • Antieau, Chester James (1952). "Equal Protection outside the Clause". California Law Review. 40 (3): 362–377. doi:10.2307/3477928. JSTOR 3477928. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  • However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. ISSN 0017-8322. Archived from the original on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
  • For data and analysis, see Orfield (July 2001). "Schools More Separate" (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  • Goldstein, Leslie. "Between the Tiers: The New(est) Equal Protection and Bush v. Gore Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, p. 372 (2002) .
  • Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Justice Kennedy's World Archived 2013-07-09 at the Wayback Machine", The National Law Journal (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."
  • United States v. Windsor Archived 2015-04-27 at the Wayback Machine, No. 12-307, 2013 BL 169620, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (U.S. June 26, 2013).
  • See Schuck, Peter H. (September 5, 2003). "Reflections on Grutter". Jurist. Archived from the original on 2005-09-09.

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

  • For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review. 82: 151. ISSN 0021-0552. SSRN 1121505.
  • However, the legal concept of corporate personhood predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. ISSN 0017-8322. Archived from the original on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
  • See Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal. 62: 779. ISSN 0019-6665.; Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review. 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN 0040-4411.
  • Joslin, Courtney (1997). "Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation". Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 32: 225, 240. ISSN 0017-8039. The Romer Court applied a more 'active,' Cleburne-like rational basis standard ...; Farrell, Robert C. (1999). "Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans". Indiana Law Review. 32: 357. ISSN 0019-6665.
  • See Koppelman, Andrew (1994). "Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination". New York University Law Review. 69: 197. ISSN 0028-7881.; see also Fricke v. Lynch, 491 F.Supp. 381, 388, fn. 6 (1980), vacated 627 F.2d 1088 [case decided on First Amendment free-speech grounds, but "This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex."]

yale.edu

digitalcommons.law.yale.edu