Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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.

1. “[t]he legislative intent behind the sex-offender registry is to protect the public from sex offenders, whom the legislature has found to pose a high risk of reoffending after having been released from custody. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-902 . Individuals convicted of a subsequent sex offense under a second case number have committed more than one sex crime, and the General Assembly could have concluded that these individuals are more likely to reoffend.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wyly v. State

2. “The underinclusiveness of a particular provision does not make the provision unconstitutional. Landers v. Stone , 2016 Ark. 272 , 496 S.W.3d 370 . Thus, Ray's argument concerning sex offenders convicted of offenses against multiple victims under one case number does not render the legislature's chosen classification unconstitutional.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wyly v. State

3. “[h]as pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to or been found guilty of a second or subsequent sex offense under a separate case number, not multiple counts on the same charge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wyly v. State