State v. Sealy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably State v. Boyd (2010), State v. Rodriguez (1997)
36 state decisions
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 State v. Sinclair · State v. Morrill · Commonwealth v. Hall · State v. McDonough · United States v. Arboleda
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Any person who carries upon his or her person . . . any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or over in length . . . shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both . . . . (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to . . . any person who is found with any such knife concealed upon one's person while lawfully removing such person's household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another . . . any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such knife from such person's place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such knife is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to such person's place of abode or business with such knife . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he defendant did not have the exclusive use of the area between the second and third floor apartments, as he did not have the legal right to control access and to exclude others. At any time there might be [delivery persons], the landlord, his or her agents, visitors, or residents of the other apartment in that common hallway and the defendant could not lawfully have excluded them from the premises. In other words, although the defendant may have been the principal user of the third floor landing and stairway, other individuals, however infrequent their use, also had a right to use that area. ... This being the case, we conclude that the stairway and landing which led to the defendant's apartment were not part of his residence or abode.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“he had exclusive control over the landing and stairway between the second and third floor apartments ... [and] that his exclusive use and control over this area rendered the landing and stairway part of his residence and, therefore, his carrying a weapon in this area was exempt ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.