State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2019
17 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2313
Relies on Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily · Vaca v. Sipes · Skiriotes v. Florida · State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · State v. McNair
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within this state; or 2. The conduct outside this state constitutes an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense within this state and an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy occurs within this state[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chan · State v. Yegan“had, at most, only an insubstantial and indirect effect in Arizona”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The primary constitutional question for jurisdictional statutes involves the power of a state to legislate other than on a strict territorial basis. The following excerpt from the Michigan Revised Criminal Code (proposed), commentary to § 140 summarizes the law: Unless the state constitution contains a provision limiting the power of the legislature to enact legislation with extraterritorial application, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court cases like [Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 , 61 S.Ct. 924 , 85 L.Ed. 1193 (1941) ], and [Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 , 31 S.Ct. 558 , 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911) ], appear clearly to permit a state to exercise any basis of legislative jurisdiction recognized in international law unless (1) the actual application of state legislation conflicts with the paramount power of the federal government to regulate and conduct foreign relations, (2) the legislation covers an area that the Congress has preempted under one of the powers delegated to it, or (3) there is an impermissible conflict with the legislative policies of the other state or states in which the defendant’s actual conduct took place. Id. at 20 (emphasis added). Thus, the Code Commission recognized that the principles of international law circumscribe the state’s criminal jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Flores
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.