Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 MT 235 - State v. Neufeld

State v. Neufeld’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)

Relies on State v. Tadewaldt · State v. Gazda · State v. Cech · State v. Sword

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

  1. “Former prosecution in another jurisdiction. When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or of two courts of separate, overlapping, or concurrent jurisdiction in this state, a prosecution in any other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the same circumstances barring further prosecution in this state if: (1) the first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction and the subsequent prosecution is based on an offense arising out of the same transaction; or (2) the former prosecution was terminated, after the charge had been filed, by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and the acquittal, final order, or judgment necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting [interstate or foreign commerce], with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished ... [if the person knows or has reason to know the visual depiction will be transported in interstate commerce].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"(1) a defendant's conduct constitutes an offense within the jurisdiction of the court where the first prosecution occurred and within the jurisdiction of the court where the subsequent prosecution is pursued; (2) the first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction; and (3) the subsequent prosecution is based on an offense arising out of the same transaction [as that term is defined in § 46-1-202(23), MCA]."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.