State v. Strong’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably State v. Higa (1995), State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Kennedy (1995)
87 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Halper · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Grady v. Corbin · Helvering v. Mitchell
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “involves an affirmative disability or restraint,” (2) “has historically been regarded as a punishment,” (3) requires a finding of scienter, and (4) promotes the “traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence.” To the extent “an alternative purpose to which [the sanction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it,” the sanction need not be considered punitive, if it does not appear “excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he license suspension proceeding is not a criminal prosecution .... The Legislature intended a civil proceeding; the civil procedure rules apply; the evidentiary standard of proof is civil; and, finally, no criminal sanction may be imposed through the proceeding - only license suspension can take place.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosection may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hansen
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.