Doe 1 v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 42 U.S.C. § 13663 · 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Paul v. Davis · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Carey v. Piphus
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is beyond dispute that public notification pursuant to the [District of Columbia's Sexual Offender Registration Act] results in stigma”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is likely to carry with it shame, humiliation, ostracism, loss of employment and decreased opportunities for employment, perhaps even physical violence, and a multitude of other adverse consequences ... there is no genuine dispute that the dissemination of the information contemplated by the Act to the community at large is potentially harmful to plaintiffs' personal reputations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the question is not whether the statutory scheme envisions making such an individualized assessment, but whether the Due Process Clause requires it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.