Commonwealth v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[when a restriction is imposed equally upon all offenders, with no consideration given to how dangerous any particular registrant may be to public safety, that restriction begins to look far more like retribution for past offenses than a regulation intended to prevent future ones.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, IN the INTEREST OF T.B., Respondent/Cross-Petitioner · Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

2. “In analyzing this Mendoza-Martinez factor, the Supreme Court of Kentucky determined a similar residency restriction was "regarded in our history and traditions as punishment." The court found the restriction expels registrants from their homes even if they resided there prior to the statute's enactment. The Oklahoma version of SORA is even more restrictive than the Kentucky law because the restrictive distance is twice as large as Kentucky's one-thousand-foot distance. The expulsion from one's residence is likewise analogous to the traditional punishment of banishment. Again, we are not making a determination of the constitutionality of any of these individual registration requirements but for purposes of analyzing the second Mendoza-Martinez factor we find the totality of these requirements weigh in favor of punishment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO

3. “`impact[s] where an offender's children attend school, access to public transportation for employment purposes, access to employment opportunities, access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs and even access to medical care and residential nursing home facilities for the aging offender.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 188 Cal. App. 4th 1090 - People v. Mosley