State v. Mountjoy’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Lewis (1998), State v. Skolaut (2008)
63 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1382 · 18 U.S.C. § 751
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Dennis v. United States · United States v. Bailey · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). We conclude the standard for considering a question reserved is met by this appeal. The State's reserved question does not require this court to analyze factual circumstances unique to the present case but raises a matter of statutory interpretation that would have widespread application. Further, the issue is one of first impression, is likely to arise repeatedly, and is important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. Accordingly, we accept the State's question, finding it is”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Schulze · State v. Tremble“"Among all the objects sought to be secured by government, none is more important than the preservation of the public health. [Citation omitted.] It is fundamental that where a statute is designed to protect the public, the language of that statute must be construed in the light of the legislative intent and purpose and is entitled to a broad interpretation so that its public purpose may be fully carried out."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Except as otherwise provided, a criminal intent is an essential element of every crime defined by this code. Criminal intent may be established by proof that the conduct of tire accused person was intentional or reckless. Proof of intentional conduct shall be required to establish criminal intent, unless the statute defining the crime expressly provides that the prohibited act is criminal if done in a reckless manner. “(b) Intentional conduct is conduct that is purposeful and willful and not accidental. . . . “(c) Reckless conduct is conduct done under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to the person of another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger.””
2 later decisions 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.