People v. Barger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “legislative classifications predicated on sexual status must receive the closest judicial scrutiny”
• \legislative classifications predicated on sexual status must receive the closest judicial scrutiny\
• questioning standing of defendant, but still addressing merits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Abarca v. People No. 13SC750, Hill v. People No. 14SC3, Medrano-Bustamante v. People No. 14SC7, People v. Smoots
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2017-02-27· cited 110×
• Conaway v. Deane
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2007-09-18· cited 89×
• People v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1981-09-14· cited 60×
• Burning Tree Club, Inc. v. Bainum
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1985-12-23· cited 30×
• Brown v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2010-09-20· cited 30×
• State v. Zaehringer
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1979-06-27· cited 28×
• People v. Komar
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2015-12-03· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Rivera
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1974-08-06· cited 136×
• People v. Cooke
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1974-08-06· cited 50×
• People v. Gould
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1975-03-17· cited 23×
• People v. Green
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1973-10-01· cited 21×