State v. Gattis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 57 state decisions

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd, criminal or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It shall also be unlawful for any person to attempt by telephone to extort money or other thing of value from any other person, or to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any other person at the place where the telephone call or calls were received, or to maliciously make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with intent to annoy or disturb another, or to disrupt the telecommunications of another.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shaneace L. · State v. Stephens

2. “People v. Klick[, 66 Ill.2d 269 , 5 Ill. Dec. 858 , 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977)] held that the Illinois statute criminalized conduct protected by the first amendment, i.e., the right to communicate to another in a reasonable manner. Id., [ 5 Ill.Dec. at 860 ], 362 N.E.2d at 331 . Examples of reasonable communications that the court believed were prohibited by the statute include a call made by a customer to express dissatisfaction with a product or service, a call by an irate citizen to a public official, or a call by an individual bickering over family matters. The New Mexico statute requires that a call made with the intent to annoy or disturb must be made maliciously. This excludes valid calls of the type described in People v. Klick even if they are intended to cause minor annoyance, since “maliciously” is defined as the intentional doing of a harmful act without just cause or excuse, or in utter disregard of the consequences. Potomac Insurance Co. v. Torres, 75 N.M. 129 , 401 P.2d 308 (1965).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stephens

3. “The proven circumstances from which an accused's state of mind or intent can be inferred are his acts, conduct and words.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stallings v. Tansy