Neville v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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. ““Neville asserts that § 554 is unconstitutional ‘as applied to consenting adults of the opposite sex acting in private.’ While the questions presented in the petitions for certiorari have characterized the conduct here as being ‘private,’ and while that characterization may well be properly applied to the locations here involved in other contexts, the private nature of particular conduct in a given location for constitutional right of privacy purposes is a matter of degree determined by all of the circumstances. Here, where the conduct even if consensual, is fellatio, and even if we assume, arguendo, that constitutional personal autonomy could under some circumstances protect that sexual act, we do not believe that constitutional personal autonomy prohibits enforcement of § 554 under the facts of the present case.” >fe $ }¡c * * sje “The clear majority of consensual fellatio cases which have considered arguments based on personal autonomy have looked to the location and other circumstances to determine if any right of privacy could apply.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Schochet v. State

2. ““Following a reference to the compelling state interest test for the justification of certain state regulation and to the requirement that such a regulation must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake, as those concepts were applied in Roe v. Wade, the Court inserted the following footnote: Contrary to the suggestion advanced in Mr. Justice Powell’s opinion, we do not hold that state regulation must meet this standard ‘whenever it implicates sexual freedom,’ ... or ‘affect[s] adult sexual relations,’ ... but only when it ‘burdenjs] an individual’s right to decide to prevent conception or terminate pregnancy by substantially limiting access to the means of effectuating that decision.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 75 Md. App. 314 - Schochet v. State

3. “"Every person who is convicted of taking into his or her mouth the sexual organ of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of committing any other unnatural or perverted sexual practice with any other person or animal, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or be imprisoned in jail or in the house of correction or in the penitentiary for a period not exceeding ten years, or shall be fined and imprisoned within the limits above prescribed in the discretion of the court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Lancaster