Gaines v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Maass (2003), United States v. Kincade (2004)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 14 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Schmerber v. State of California · Whitley v. Albers · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · Griffin v. Wisconsin · National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the challenged classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Gaines launches numerous constitutional attacks on NRS 176.0913, including claims that the statute is overbroad and that it violates his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to equal protection, right to due process, and right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Although we will address each constitutional argument in turn, we note preliminarily that all fifty states have enacted genetic marker testing statutes, and that appellate courts considering the constitutionality of these statutes have uniformly upheld them. See Landry v. Attorney General 429 Mass. 336 , 709 N.E.2d 1085 , 1090 (1999); see, e.g., Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir.1999); Boling v. Romer, 101 F.3d 1336, 1340 (10th Cir.1996); Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556, 1562 (9th Cir.1995); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 308 (4th Cir.1992); Vanderlinden v. Kansas, 874 F.Supp. 1210, 1215 (D.Kan.1995); Kruger v. Erickson, 875 F.Supp. 583 , 588-89 (D.Minn.1995); Ryncarz v. Eikenberry, 824 F.Supp. 1493 (E.D.Wash.1993); In the Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Auth., 187 Ariz. 419 , 930 P.2d 496, 501 (Ct.App.1997); People v. Wealer, 264 Ill.App.3d 6 , 201 Ill.Dec. 697 , 636 N.E.2d 1129, 1137 (1994); Cooper v. Gammon, 943 S.W.2d 699, 705 (Mo.Ct.App.1997); In the Matter of Marcus Orozco, 129 Or.App. 148 , 878 P.2d 432, 435-36 (1994); State v. Olivas, 122 Wash.2d 73 , 856 P.2d 1076, 1086 (1993).” 116 Nev. at 367.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Maass“a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. LS v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.