Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 438 A.2d 247 - State v. Pierce

State v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
4
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Sutton v. Commonwealth (1985), 44 Conn. App. 683 - Simonds v. Shaw (1997)

48 state decisions

37019811990200020102020decided

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 Russell v. United States · Hartman v. United States · Williams v. United States · United States v. Nixon · State v. Charette

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

  1. “Kathleen Van Burén, the [victim], was fourteen years old when she chose to leave the home of her natural father in December 1978 to live with her natural mother, defendant Sandra Van Burén, and Sandra’s boyfriend, defendant Rex-ford Pierce. Kathleen testified that on January 21, 1979, the defendants approached her in the bathroom and took her to the bedroom. Sandra told her not to worry. Pierce then massaged both Kathleen and Sandra. Pierce next announced his intention to have sexual intercourse with Kathleen, who said “No”. The defendants went into the next room and argued. Kathleen could see them. Pierce raised his hand and told Sandra to get out of his way. Kathleen then submitted to intercourse with Pierce, because she was afraid that he would hit her mother. Sandra Van Burén helped Pierce complete the act of penetration. Both defendants, however, testified [at trial] that this incident never occurred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A person is guilty of gross sexual misconduct 1. If he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and A. He compels such other person to submit: (1) by force and against the will of such other person; or (2) by threat that death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping will be imminently inflicted on such other person or on any other human being; [[Image here]] 2. If he engages in sexual intercourse or a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and [[Image here]] B. He compels or induces the other to engage in such sexual intercourse or sexual act by any threat; [[Image here]] 4. Violation of subsection 1 is a Class A crime.... 5. ... Violation of subsection 2, paragraph [ ] B ... is a Class C crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[[Image here]] 2. If he engages in sexual intercourse or a sexual act with another person and: E. The other person, not his spouse, is in official custody of a probationer or a parolee, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution, and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over that other person[.]”
    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.