Buck v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “aggravates or increases the punishment for a crime as compared to the punishment when the crime was committed....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Telly Savalas Denson · Roach v. Ky. Parole Bd.

2. “In addition, Buck argues that the 2000 amendment, which increased failure to register (first offense) from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony, constitutes ex post facto punishment when applied to him. We cannot agree. “Any potential punishment arising from the violation of [SORA] is totally prospective and is not punishment for past criminal behavior.” Hyatt, 72 S.W.3d at 572 . See also [Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 101-02 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (“A sex offender who fails to comply with the reporting requirement may be subjected to a criminal prosecution for that failure, but any prosecution is a proceeding separate from the individual’s original offense.”).] While a sex offender’s past conduct is the reason he or she is required to register, the failure to register occurs in the present. An increase in the degree of the offense for failing to register would only present an ex post facto issue if the act of failing to register occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. France v. Commonwealth

3. “Analyzing SORA and its 2006 amendments in light of what it requires from the registrant, we continue to believe that SORA is a remedial measure with a rational connection to the nonpunitive goal of protection of public safety, and we see no reason to depart from our holding in Hyatt . Buck has demonstrated nothing in the 2006 amendments to SORA drastic enough to render SORA punitive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Thompson