State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably State v. Schwartz (1989), 111 Ill. 2d 87 - People v. Coleman (1986)
45 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Patterson v. United States · South Dakota v. Neville · State v. Freitas · Sharood v. Hatfield
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Due respect for the coequal branches of government requires the court to exercise great restraint before striking down a statute as unconstitutional, particularly when it involves a determination of what is a legislative and what is a judicial function.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pearson · State v. Johnson“The use of prior convictions to increase punishment for an underlying substantive offense committed after the effective date of a statute providing for increased penalties does not violate the ex post facto provisions of either the state or federal constitutions. The 1982 amendment did not increase the penalty imposed on offenses pre-dating the effective date of the statute. Rather, it increased the possible penalty for the latest crime, which is considered a gross misdemeanor because of the prior offense. Merely allowing a conviction obtained before the amendment to be used in the assessment of the penalty for a subsequent offense does not violate the constitution. Numerous courts have so held.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“After oral argument in this case the United States Supreme Court decided South Dakota v. Neville, [ 459 U.S. 553 ], 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), holding that the admission into evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to such a test does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether we would interpret our state constitutional provision in the same manner is not now before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Berge
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.