State v. Nagel’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2023
2 federal appellate · 17 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Morissette v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Delaney v. United States · State v. Williams · United States v. Greenbaum
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether criminal intent or guilty knowledge is an essential element of a statutory offense is to be determined by the language of the act in connection with its manifest purpose and design.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Stone · Cochrun v. Solem““. . . it is widely understood that the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission a crime without regard to the intent or knowledge of the doer. Whether criminal intent or guilty knowledge is an essential element of a statutory offense is to be determined by the language of the act in connection with its manifest purpose and design.... See 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law §§ 89-91 (1965), and 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 30, p. 101 (1961), wherein in each of these treatises we are told that it is generally within the power of the legislature to declare an act criminal irrespective of criminal intent, and that due process is not violated by excluding criminal intent as an element of the crime. This is especially true as to public welfare offenses, and food and drug offenses.” State v. Nagel, 279 N.W.2d 911, 915 (S.D.1979). “. . . the legislature properly may prohibit the doing of an act which involves neither moral turpitude nor evil motive. In the area of drug regulation, guilty intent is not necessarily a prerequisite to the imposition of criminal sanctions. United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Company, 376 U.S. 86 , 84 S.Ct. 559 , 11 L.Ed.2d 536 (1964).” Coates v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.2d 346, 347 (Ky.1971) (possession of marijuana).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rippley“`undue, prolonged or persistent pressures were exerted against him, ... that this inducement was dangled in front of him'[,] ... or that he was `played upon'....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Goodroad
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.