Hodgson v. Minnesota’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
136 federal appellate · 48 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 434 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey (1992), Roper Superintendent Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons (2005)
136 federal appellate · 48 district · 105 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHodgson v. Minnesota (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 505 · 42 U.S.C. § 300Z · 42 U.S.C. § 5671
Relies on Santosky v. Kramer · Roe v. Wade · Stanley v. Illinois · Turner v. Safley · Griswold v. State of Connecticut
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 434 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One Justice holds that two-parent notification is unconstitutional (at least in the present circumstances) without judicial bypass, but constitutional with bypass....; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is constitutional with or without bypass....; four Justices would hold that two-parent notification is unconstitutional with or without bypass, though the four would apply two different standards....; six Justices hold that one-parent notification with bypass is constitutional, though for two different sets of reasons. ...; and three Justices would hold that one-parent notification with bypass is unconstitutional ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The statute before us, including the 48-hour waiting period, which is necessary to enable notified parents to consult with their daughter or their daughter's physician, if they so wish, and results in little or no delay, represents a permissible, reasoned attempt to preserve the parents’ role in a minor’s decision to have an abortion without placing any absolute obstacles before a minor who is determined to elect an abortion for her own interest as she sees it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“has a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.