State v. Woodley’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2018
16 state decisions
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.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the sexual or other intimate parts of a person”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"First, because the object of the statute is to protect persons from unwanted intimacies, the part must be regarded as `intimate' by the person touched. This is a subjective test. "Second, if an accused touched this part knowing that the touched person regarded it as intimate and did not consent, the accused violates the statute if the requisite sexual purpose is proved. If the accused, regardless of his or her private purpose, did not know that the part was `intimate' to the person touched, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused should have recognized it to be an `intimate part.' The latter is an objective test. "In other words, the part must be subjectively intimate to the person touched, and either known by the accused to be so or to be an area of the anatomy that would be objectively known to be intimate by any reasonable person."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Intimate parts' are more than 'sexual parts,' but in context the words refer to parts that evoke the offensiveness of unwanted sexual intimacy, not offensive touch generally.”
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.