State v. Meinert’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably State v. Huffman (1980), State v. Durrant (1989)
2 district · 42 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 Winters v. People of State of New York · Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission · Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange Cty. · United States v. Cardiff · State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Fadely
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) Endangering a child is willfully: “(a) Causing or permitting a child under the age of eighteen (18) years to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental distress; or “(b) Unreasonably causing or permitting a child under the age of eighteen (18) years to be placed in a situation in which its life, body or health may be injured or endangered. “(2) Endangering a child is a class A misdemeanor.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brooks · State v. Fisher““The test [for vagueness] ... is whether its language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the conduct proscribed when measured by common understanding and practice. If a statute conveys this warning it is not void for vagueness. Conversely, a statute which either requires or forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is violative of due process. At its heart the test for vagueness is a common-sense determination of fundamental fairness.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Fisher““Some persons do not believe in any form of corporal punishment and to them any such treatment would be unjustified. On the other hand, others may believe any correction, however severe, which produces temporary pain only, and no lasting injury or disfigurement, is justified. The statute can conceivably cover anything from a minor, spanking or slapping to severe beating depending upon the personal beliefs of the individual.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Jennings
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.