Ravin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. George H. Lustig, United States of America v. Gregory D. Pederson (1977), Davenport v. Garcia (1992)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 102 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Relationships
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Dandridge v. Williams · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Boyd v. United States · Roth v. United States
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must yield when it interferes in a serious manner with the health, safety, rights and privileges of others or with the public welfare.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude that [the state has shown] no adequate justification for the state’s intrusion into the citizen’s right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home[.] The privacy of the individual’s home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied. The state has a legitimate concern with avoiding the spread of marijuana use to adolescents who may not be equipped with the maturity to handle the experience prudently, as well as a legitimate concern with the problem of driving under the influence of marijuana. Yet these interests are insufficient to justify intrusions into the rights of adults in the privacy of their own homes.”
4 later decisions 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.