Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 Ga. 615 - Banta v. State

Banta v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably State v. Jackson (2010), Rooney v. State (2010)

44 state decisions

290200720102020decided

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 United States v. Lanier · Salinas v. United States · United States v. Shabani · State v. Miller · Montes v. State

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

  1. “'The rule of lenity ... applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. . . knowingly and willfully falsifies ... a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other political subdivision of this state. . . . 15”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “This is not a case in which the prosecutor’s decision to consider [Appellant’s] act to be criminal and to be a proper subject of prosecution is made only because of the act’s consequence. [Cit.] Rather, [Appellant’s] act was criminal when he [provided the pre-signed prescription forms to his nurse practitioner], without regard to the result of that act. . . . “[T]he fact that application of the statute’s standards sometimes requires an assessment of the surrounding circumstances to determine if the statute is violated does not render it unconstitutional. [Cit.]” [Cits.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.