State v. Cotton’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2007
18 state decisions
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 McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Olmstead v. United States · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Shelton v. Tucker · Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“broad social impact” theories, the elements of which present the only realistic justifications for the law in question. Both theories maintain that though helmet laws are directed on a primary level toward protecting the individual from head injuries, on a secondary level they protect much broader social interests. Viewed without limit, of course,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Baker · State v. Mallan“I cannot agree that the protection of an individual from himself is within the legitimate police power; otherwise, there would be no restriction or limitation to this power, and the State could regulate an individual’s life, his way of living, and even his way of thinking. The statute is not concerned with the preservation of public safety, health, order, morals, or welfare; and though the headgear requirement may be beneficent, nevertheless, it is unconstitutional because it attempts to infringe upon and stifle the fundamental personal right of liberty, under which each individual may act as he sees fit to preserve his own safety if he does not harm others in doing so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Mallan““Every enactment of the legislature carries a presumption of constitutional validity and should be upheld by the courts unless it has been shown to be, beyond all reasonable doubt, in violation of the Constitution. Moreover, the facts adduced to show unconstitutionality must be clear and convincing and must show beyond question that the legislature exceeded the limits marked by the Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Kahalewai
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.