Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 A.2d 235 - Scott v. State

Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2016

1 district · 12 state decisions

701987199020002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Delaware v. Fensterer · McDougall v. North Carolina

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

  1. “It should be noted, however, that a person is not guilty of kidnapping under subsection (4) every time he commits the crime of rape or assault. Both of those crimes inevitably involve some restraint of the person, but much more is required here before the additional and aggravated offense of kidnapping is committed. The State must prove that the restraint interfered substantially with the victim’s liberty. Such a requirement means that there must be more interference than is ordinarily incident to the underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “So viewed, the facts arguably do not support a finding of “substantial interference.” Under the circumstances, the Trial Court was obliged to instruct the jury that a conviction of kidnapping would require proof of more interference than is ordinarily incident to the crime of rape. In our view, such an instruction was necessary to enable a jury intelligently to perform its duty when returning a verdict as to both rape and kidnapping. The failure to give such an instruction was reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “rendered harmless by the disclosure to the jury of defendant's prior criminal convictions.”
    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.