State v. Nesmith’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
29 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 23 U.S.C. § 408
Relies on Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. · Bob Jones University v. United States · Rita v. United States · United States v. Wells
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the state of mind required to establish an element of an offense is not specified by the law, that element is established if, with respect thereto, a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ui. · Rita v. State“[i]n Nesmith , the concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Acoba reads the majority opinion as concluding ‘that a state of mind is a ‘fact’ that must be included in an HRS § 291-E-61(a)(l) charge for due process purposes only, but not an element of HRS § 291E-61(a)(l) that must be included in a charge for purposes of jurisdiction.’ Although the Nesmith majority opinion does not state this distinction between the sufficiency of a charge for due process purposes and for jurisdictional purposes in unmistakable terms, pending further clarification, we adopt Justice Aco-ba’s reading of the majority’s opinion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Maharaj · State v. Kam“5.03 INCLUDED OFFENSE—GENERIC If and only if you find the defendant not guilty of (charged offense), or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of (included offense!. A person commits the offense of (included offense! if he/she (track statutory language). There are (number) material elements of this offense, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These (number) elements are: [[Image here]]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Flores 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.