State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]here an individual’s conduct, or a class of individuals’ conduct, does not directly harm others the public interest is not affected and [such conduct] is not properly the subject of the police power of the' legislature. However, where the legislature has determined that the conduct of a particular’ class of people recklessly affects them physical well-being and that the consequent physical injury and death is so widespread as to be of grave concern to the public and where the incidence and severity of the physical harm has been statistically demonstrated to the satisfaction of th[is c]ourt, then the conduct of that class of people affects the public interest and is properly within the scope of the police power. Of course, where the conduct sought to be regulated is in furtherance of a specific constitutional right, a different situation arises.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cotton · State v. Silva

2. “As stated by the majority of the court, the issue of this case is whether the legislature may constitutionally regulate the conduct of a person for his own safety. I disagree with the majority opinion and I would hold the provision ... requiring [Lee], a motorcyclist, to wear a helmet for his own safety unconstitutional. [[Image here]] I agree with the majority that the safety helmet requirement is aimed at preventing a further increase in the toll highway accidents have taken of the state’s citizens based on the legislative finding that highway travel presents a special hazard for motorcyclists. However, no matter how beneficent or humane the purpose of the statute, it cannot be upheld unless it is a legitimate exercise of its police power for the public order, safety, health, morals[,] or welfare. I believe our State Constitution specifically recognizes one’s right to be let alone. Article I, § 2 provides: “All persons are free by nature and are equal in their inherent and inalien able rights. Among these rights are the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the acquiring and possession of property. These rights cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding obligations and responsibilities.” There is no question that an individual has a fundamental constitutional right to he let alone — liberty to do as he pleases— but, of cotirse, subject to reasonable restriction under the police power. Here, one’s right to be let alone on a public hi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cotton · State v. Mallan

3. “so alarming, so widespread and of such grave dimension that [they threatened] the very fabric of society,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cotton · State v. Mallan