State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Paul v. Davis · 152 Wis. 2d 113 - State v. McManus · Ferdon Ex Rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund · State v. Kelty · 2001 WI App 172 - State v. Leitner
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“overlooks the purpose of the statute, which is protecting the public— specifically, children. The goal is not to identify individuals guilty of a crime with a sexual element.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith“there is a rational basis for the distinctions created by the legislature, the means specified in the statute, and the legislative goals of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith“[A] person shall comply with the reporting requirements under this section if he or she ... (a) Is convicted . .. for a sex offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith
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.