State v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Lewd fondling or touching means] fondling or touching in a manner which tends to undermine the morals of the victim, which is so clearly offensive as to outrage the moral senses of a reasonable person, and which is done with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the victim or the offender or both. Lewd fondling or touching does not require contact with the sex organ of one or the other. [Citation omitted.]””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ramos · State v. Dinh Loc Ta

2. “"(b) any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender or both."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ramos · In Re CPW

3. ““The word ‘lewd’ has an unmistakable meaning which is very well and generally understood. The common definition of lewd may be found in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (p. 1301) where it is defined as sexually unchaste or licentious; suggestive of or tending to moral looseness; inciting to sensual desire or imagination; indecent, obscene, salacious. Similar definitions may be found in practically any standard dictionary.” Wells, 223 Kan. at 98 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 Kan. App. 2d 767 - State v. Rutherford