Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 CONNAPP 79 - State v. Lewtan

State v. Lewtan’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Buhl (2016), State v. Calabrese (2006)

34 state decisions

15019851990200020102020decided

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 State v. Asherman · State v. Kurvin · State v. Mason · State v. Ruiz · State v. Braman

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

  1. “[e]vidence of the language used in an alleged violation of the harassment statute [was] relevant to show the intent of the accused in making the telephone call as well as the likelihood of its causing annoyance or alarm.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Evidence of the language used in an alleged violation of the harassment statute is relevant to show the intent of the accused in making the telephone call as well as the likelihood of its causing annoyance or alarm .... The witness was testifying as to his observation of the child relative to telephone calls made to the family home by the defendant. These observations were relevant to show that the calls were, in the words of the statute, likely to cause annoyance or alarm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “fact finder may consider the language used in the communication in determining whether the state has proven the elements of the offense, namely, that the defendant intended to harass, annoy or alarm, and that he did so in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm”
    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.