Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 MASS 155 - Doe v. Attorney General

Doe v. Attorney General’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
5
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

2 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Wilkinson (2000), Commonwealth v. Cory (2009)

2 district · 38 state decisions

240199920002010decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Packaging Industries Group, Inc. v. Cheney · Aime v. Commonwealth · Opinion of the Justices to the Senate

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

  1. “a continuing, intrusive, and humiliating regulation of the person himself. To require registration of persons not in connection with any particular activity asserts a relationship between government and the individual that is in principle quite alien to our traditions, a relationship which when generalized has been the hallmark of totalitarian government.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[s]ituations may exist, however, where the danger to be prevented is grave, and the risk of reoffense great, such that the promulgation of regulations narrowly tailored to allow for automatic registration may clarify and simplify the enforcement of the sex offender registration act in a manner that comports with procedural due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “level one offenders have liberty and privacy interests protected by the state constitution, which is implicated by the requirement that he register, disclosure of his accumulated personal information on request, and statutory branding of him as a public danger.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.