Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 306 Minn. 395 - State v. Schweppe

State v. Schweppe’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
15
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 100 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Mei-Fen Chen (1990), State v. Murphy (1996)

9 federal appellate · 100 state decisions — followed in 15 states

380197519801990200020102020decided

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 Watts v. United States · State v. Spreigl · State v. Billstrom · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Parker

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

  1. “"A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being’s or another's safety or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious disruption or public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person: 1. Threatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life; or 2. Falsely informs another that a situation dangerous to human life or commission of a crime of violence is imminent knowing that the information is false."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[p]urpose ... means aim, objective, or intention”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “that defendant knew, or had reason to know, and thus intended that his threats to kill [the victim] would be communicated to him. * * * The jury also may well have concluded that defendant at the very least recklessly risked the danger that his threats would be communicated and thereby would terrorize [the victim]. Other courts have concluded that a defendant need not directly communicate the threat to the intended victim to be guilty of making a criminal threat.”
    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.