State v. St. Cloud’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2024
2 district · 19 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Davis v. Wakelee · United States v. Rogers · Dwyer v. Christensen · State v. Reiman · Mueller v. Mueller
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither movement nor prolonged confinement of the victim is an essential element of first-degree rape under [our statute]. Moreover, most movement of rape victims by their attackers is designed to seclude the victim from possible assistance and to prevent escape-{[conduct] which inevitably increases the risk of harm to the victim. We read [our prior cases] merely to say that a kidnapping may be incidental to another crime when the kidnapping consists either of confinement of minimal duration or of minimal movement within the same premises. Where, however, the kidnapping consists of prolonged confinement or movement from one premises to another-even if only from a parked car to an abandoned house-then ... the kidnap ping cannot be considered incidental to another crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lykken · Hurd v. State“(1) A party’s inter-proceeding inconsistency must be about a matter of fact, not law. (2) The position the party took in the prior proceeding must have been a significant factor there. (3) The two positions must be absolutely irreconcilable. (4) The prior position must not have been taken as a result of mistake, inadvertence or fraud upon the party taking the position.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“effectively "narrows the applicability of the South Dakota kidnapping statute to those cases in which 1) the kidnapping is not an essential element of some other clearly identified crime and 2) the victim is exposed to an increased risk of harm because of the kidnapping."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Lykken
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.