State v. Hershberger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 45 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ t]he right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed * * * nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state * * ⅜.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend · Shagalow v. State, Department of Human Services

2. “While there might be merit in deciding the case and affirming [State v.] Hershberger I [ 444 N.W.2d 282 (Minn.1989) ] based on assoeiational freedoms also infringed by the statute, thereby distinguishing Smith II, we decline to do so. It is unnecessary to rest our decision on the uncertain meaning of Smith II when the Minnesota Constitution alone provides an independent and adequate state constitutional basis on which to decide. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040 , 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (respect for independence of state courts avoids federal review of issues of state law); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 3-24, at 165-66 (2d ed. 1988) (doctrine of independent and adequate state grounds prevents interference with state’s interest in developing and applying its own law). We therefore decline to decide the applicability of [Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v.] Smith II [ 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S.Ct. 1595 , 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) ] to the facts before us.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Weatherspoon · 202 Wis. 2d 56 - State v. Miller

3. “while the terms "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive alternative" are creatures of federal doctrine, concepts embodied therein can provide guidance as we seek to strike a balance under the [state] Constitution between freedom of conscience and the state's public safety interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 202 Wis. 2d 56 - State v. Miller