Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 NW2D 267 - State v. Sullivan

State v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
8
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Reavis v. Solminski (1996), State v. Newman (1982)

3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

27019801990200020102020decided

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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. Harriss · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Safir v. Kreps · State v. Monroe

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

  1. “1. Such act is done by force or against the will of the other participant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The principles we apply in this type of case are well established .... The person mounting the constitutional challenge on a legislative enactment carries the heavy burden to rebut a strong presumption of constitutionality. If a statute can be made constitutionally definite by a reasonable construction, this court is under the duty to give the statute that construction. The specificity [that] due process requires of a penal statute need not be apparent from the face of the statute but may be ascertained by references to prior judicial decisions, similar statutes, the dictionary, or common generally accepted usage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] potential offender must simply determine if his or her partner understands the nature and consequences of engaging in the sex act. Under normal circumstances a mental incapacity to consent would be apparent in ordinary social intercourse. The potential offender who would engage in sex acts with a stranger may be required to ask questions to be 'safe,' just as he or she would be required to do in order to ascertain the other's chronological age to avoid prosecution....”
    2 later decisions 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.