State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Johnson’s last theory is that applying the 2009 SORA amendments to him, and thus denying him the opportunity to petition for exemption from registration, would violate his right to due process. Johnson argues that the State cannot attach a "badge of infamy" upon him, based on his risk of re-offense, without affording him a chance to be heard.... the 2009 amendments do not actually create a new label or offender status.... The 2009 amendments do not attach additional notoriety to his registration status, but, rather, just affect his ability to petition for exemption. Thus, he has not been deprived of due process.”

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

2. “Johnson highlights the fact that the 2009 amendments would forever preclude him from petitioning for exemption despite the apparent likelihood that he will not reoffend____The Ex Post Facto Clause does not preclude a State from making reasonable categorical judgments that conviction of specified crimes should entail particular regulatory consequences____ The State’s determination to legislate with respect to convicted sex offenders as a class, rather than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not make the statute a punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause.”

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

3. “SORA has changed little since this Court considered it in Ray and since the Court of Appeals considered it in Gragg . The presently codified SORA findings in I.C. § 18-8302 are nearly identical to the version we evaluated in Ray . This Court has thus already concluded that SORA is regulatory in purpose. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals' analysis in Gragg aptly demonstrated that SORA, generally, is nonpunitive in effect.”

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