State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 29 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that when a substance has been proscribed as harmful, the presumption of constitutionality applies although there are conflicting scientific views as to its harmful effects.””

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

2. “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section.[ 32 ] In Gray v. State, 525 P.2d 524, 527-528 (Alaska 1974), the Supreme Court held that[,] under this amendment^] a statute which impinges upon the right of privacy “may be upheld only if it is necessary to further a compelling state interest.” Reviewing a conviction for selling marijuana, ... the court placed on the prosecution the burden of showing a compelling state interest to support the statute prohibiting the sale of marijuana. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing. ... We find nothing in our constitution or its history that leads to that conclusion. The presumption of constitutionality applies. In citing United States v. Kiffer, supra, 477 F.2d 349 (2d Cir.1973), we are not unmindful of that portion of the opinion which considers the “argument * * * that[,] in the absence of compelling justification, the police power does not extend so far as to permit the Government to protect an individual against himself and that the concern for public health and safety is relevant only insofar as the actions of one individual may threaten the well-being of others.” ( 477 F.2d at 354 .) ... With all respect, we do not agree. And the holding in our own case of State v. Kantner, 53 Haw. 327 , 493 P.2d 306 (1972), is not a precedent here,[ 33 ] because the only issue in Kantner was whether the legislature could include marijuana in the definition of a ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mallan

3. ““What we have said in no way infringes upon the power of the State or Federal Government to make possession of other items, such as narcotics, firearms, or stolen goods, a crime. Our holding in the present case turns upon the Georgia statute’s infringement of fundamental liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No First Amendment rights are involved in most statutes making mere possession criminal.” ( 394 U.S. 557 , 568 n.11, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542 , 551 n.11, 89 S. Ct. 1243 , 1249-50 n.11.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 66 Ill. App. 3d 633 - Illinois NORML, Inc. v. Scott