Traylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably State v. Badgett (1986), Commonwealth v. White (1995)
6 federal appellate · 37 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · United States v. Robinson · Williams v. Illinois · Gustafson v. Florida
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.
“"The fine levied against the defendant in this case was fixed and required by statute. Considering the serious problem Section 20-2-80 seeks to combat, the importance of the public interest sought to be protected and the enormous illegal profits involved in the undetected sale of marijuana, the mandatory $25,000.00 fine does not shock our sense of justice and is not disproportionate to the offense committed."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Shy v. State · State v. Howington“It is no novelty in our law to require that for certain crimes juveniles shall be tried as adults in the Superior Court. At the present time, juvenile offenders can be tried in the Superior Court for murder in the first degree, rape, kidnapping, and for the possession or use of molotov cocktails. ****** The matter, that of age classification for purposes of indictment and trial, has always been for the decision of the General Assembly, the policy-making branch of the State Government. The discretion of the General Assembly in setting policy under its police power is, however, not absolute. It may not be arbitrary or capricious; it must be reasonable. When the power is exercised to classify for purpose of trial for crimes, as this is, then the classification must be founded on differences reasonably related to the purposes of the statute in which the classification is made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Marine v. State · Hughes v. State“In determining whether a statutory classification, not involving a suspect class or fundamental right, violates the equal protection [or due process] clause, we presume that the distinctions so created are valid. ‘A statutory discrimination or classification will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hughes v. State
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.