State v. Bolsinger’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Gau v. Hyland (1950), State v. Ashton (1953)
2 federal appellate · 107 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Nash v. United States · State of Minnesota Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County Minn · International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · United States v. Wurzbach
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Gross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence. It is materially more want of care than constitutes simple inadvertence. It is an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care. * * * But it is something less than the willful, wanton, and reckless conduct which renders a defendant who has injured another liable to the latter even though guilty of contributory negligence, or which renders a defendant in rightful possession of real estate liable to a trespasser whom he has injured.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D]ue process requires, as a matter of fundamental justice, a statute creating a crime to prescribe reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt in order that one may know in advance just what acts are required or forbidden. Anderson v. Burnquist, 216 Minn. 49 , 11 N.W.2d 776 ; State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134 , 282 N.W. 810 ; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438 , 281 N.W. 753 ; Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 ; International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 , 34 S.Ct. 853 , 58 L.Ed. 1284 ; Rottschaefer, Constitutional Law, pp. 763-767. The standards should be such as are likely to be understood by men of ordinary intelligence and capable of reasonably certain application to the facts of particular cases. * * :i The requirements of due process are satisfied by specifying standards of conduct in terms that have acquired meaning involving reasonably definite standards either according to the common law or by long and general usage. State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438 , 281 N.W. 753 ; Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 ; and International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 , 34 S.Ct. 853 , 58 L.Ed. 1284 , supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Munnell“[t]he statute in question and those relating to homicide in force at the time of its enactment relate to one common subject matter, that of homicide. As such, they should be construed as constituting one systematic body [of] law. Each statute should be construed in the light of, with reference to, and in connection with the others. So construed, the statute in question should be fitted to the statutes in force at the time of its enactment and carried into effect conformably to them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McKown
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.