No. 00-5244’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Doe v. Poritz · United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Artway v. Attorney General of New Jersey · E.B. v. Verniero · Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia
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.
“[w]hatever privacy interest, if any, may exist in the area of one's residence ... is substantially outweighed by the state's compelling interest in disclosing Megan's Law information to the relevant public....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“identify potential recidivists and alert the public when necessary for the public safety.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Redacted Notices, it must be remembered, are not released wily-nily to the general public. Rather, they are generally given only to individuals within the court-authorized notification zone, individuals who are otherwise authorized to receive an Unredacted Notice, but who do not sign a receipt form. Any burden imposed on appellants as a result of the identification of a quite specific area of residence, albeit not the precise home address itself, simply does not trump the state’s interest in providing that information to authorized individuals within the court-authorized notification zone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.