Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Mont. 397 - VanLuchene v. State

VanLuchene v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2017

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

140199020002010decided

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 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · 27 Cal. 3d 741 - Thompson v. County of Alameda · Thayer v. Hicks · Nehring v. LaCounte · Bohnsack v. Hi-Noon Petroleum, Inc.

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1. The defendant violated a particular statute; 2. The statute was enacted to protect a specific class of persons; 3. The plaintiff is a member of that class; 4. The plaintiff’s injury is the sort the statute was enacted to prevent; and 5. The statute was intended to regulate a member of defendant’s class.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Notification to the public at large of the release of each offender who has a history of violence and who has made a generalized threat at some time during incarceration or while under supervision would, in our view, produce a cacophony of warnings that by reason of their sheer volume would add little to the effective protection of the public.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The merit of issuing a warning to the general public in the instant case is equally questionable. Appellants do not set forth how their actions would have differed had respondent made a general public warning.”
    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.