State v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The phrase ‘without legal authority’ is the controlling concept for this case. In my opinion, the phrase refers to the relationship between the person restraining and the person restrained. Contrary to the majority, I do not believe that the existence of ‘legal authority’ depends upon the ‘reasonableness’ of the restraint. Since ‘reasonableness’ is a factual question to be resolved by a trier of fact, the determination of what is or is not a reasonable restraint would be left to jury determination in each case without any standard by which to be guided. I do not believe this is what the legislature intended in using the phrase ‘without legal authority.’ To the contrary, the phrase seems clearly to suggest that where a legal status exists which ordinarily will entail control or discipline, such as that of parent and child, the crime of unlawful imprisonment is inapplicable.””

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

2. ““In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: “1. ‘Relative’ means a parent or stepparent, ancestor, descendant, sibling, uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the same degree through marriage or adoption, or a spouse. “2. ‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements without consent and without legal authority in a manner which interferes substantially with such person’s liberty, by moving such person from one place to another or by confining such person. Restraint is without consent if it is accomplished by: “(a) Physical force, intimidation or deception; or “(b) Any means including acquiescence of the victim if the victim is a child less than eighteen years old or an incompetent person and the victim’s lawful custodian has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.””

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