Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 A.2d 718 - State v. Kovtuschenko

State v. Kovtuschenko’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2018

6 state decisions

301987199020002010decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · Ross v. Reynolds · 102 N.J. Super. 370 - State v. Wenof · Townsend v. Dollison

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

  1. “1. Offense; penalty. No person may operate a motor vehicle on any public highway of this State at a time when his license ... has been suspended or revoked ... when that person: .... D. Is a person to whom written notice was sent by ordinary mail at the last known address shown by the records maintained by the Secretary of State.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It has long been the law in this jurisdiction that proof of mailing raises a presumption of receipt . Undoubtedly the Legislature had this history in mind along with the administrative convenience of this system, and above all with its concern that presumptively dangerous operators must be removed from Maine's highways ....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “mail addressed to a licensee at the address he himself supplied is reasonably calculated to reach him and apprise him of the Secretary's action. Thus, it accords this Defendant all the process that is his due. ... [T]he counterpart provision of the federal constitution imposes no more rigorous requirement of due process.”
    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.