Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 P3D 348 - People v. Cooper

People v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Frazier v. People (2004), Woellhaf v. People (2005)

64 state decisions

430200120102020decided

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 Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States · Garner v. Jones · D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin · Martin v. People · Michael J. CRAIG v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado

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

  1. “€œ[I]t is not the role of the courts to rewrite or eliminate clear and unambiguous statutes merely because they do not believe the General Assembly would have intended the consequences of its enactments.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “If a sex offender is released on parole pursuant to this section, the sex offender's sentence to incarceration shall continue and shall not be deemed discharged until such time as the parole board may discharge the sex offender from parole pursuant to subsection (8) of this section. The period of parole for any sex offender convicted of a class 4 felony shall be an indeterminate term of at least ten years and a maximum of the remainder of the sex offender's natural life.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, it shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”
    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.