State v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unless previously discharged under the provisions of section 242.19, a person who has been committed to the corrections board upon conviction of a crime as provided in section 242.13 shall be discharged by the chairman and be given his liberty on his twenty-fifth birthday, unless the board shall determine that such discharge at that time would be dangerous to the public in which event the board shall transfer him to adult status, whereupon such person shall continue to serve the sentence theretofore imposed upon him (1) as a probationer or parolee if transferred while on probation or parole, or (2) in confinement if transferred while confined; subject, however, to be retaken and confined in the event of violation of parole or probation, or conditionally released on parole or discharged at the discretion of the board.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riley v. State

2. ““* * * To ‘constitute duplicity of subject, an act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other. All that is necessary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant, merely, that all matters treated of should fall under some one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject. * * * All that is required is that the act should not include legislation so incongruous that it could not, by any fair intendment, be considered germane to one general subject. * * * The title was never intended to be an index of the law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Duluth v. Northland Greyhound Lines

3. ““In all these arguments, defendant seeks to confuse the administrative supervision of convicted offenders after the imposition of sentence with proceedings that take place prior to the imposition of sentence. The trial terminates when the defendant is convicted. No rights of the defendant are affected by the act in any way up to that time. The court must then impose such sentence as the legislature has prescribed. In this case, the mandatory sentence is commitment to the commission unless the court places defendant on probation. Supervision of defendant after commitment may be vested in an administrative board without violating any constitutional rights of defendant. That is what the act does.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Volden v. Haas