Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 MT 261 - Armstrong v. State

Armstrong v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
6
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F. (2001), Larson v. State (2019)

2 federal appellate · 117 state decisions

6401999200020102020decided

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 Katz v. United States · Warth v. Seldin · Mapp v. Ohio · Roe v. Wade · Paul v. Davis

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

  1. “Montana’s Constitution, and especially the Declaration of Rights, is not simply a cook book of disconnected and discrete rules written with the vitality of an automobile insurance policy. Rather, our Constitution, and in particular its Declaration of Rights, encompasses a cohesive set of principles, carefully drafted and committed to an abstract ideal of just government. It is a compact of overlapping and redundant rights and guarantees.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “fundamental privacy right to obtain a particular lawful medical procedure from a health care provider that has been determined by the medical community to be competent to provide that service and who has been licensed to do so.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “by the medical community in the exercise of its collective professional expertise and judgment, acting through the state's medical examining and licensing authorities, and after taking into consideration the education, training, experience and skills of the health care provider and the patient's health interests[.]”
    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.