Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Scadden v. State (1987), State v. Luna (1980)
59 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 Morissette v. United States · United States v. Bass · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Tot v. United States · International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"1. The requirement of a reasonable degree of certainty in legislation, especially in the criminal law, is a well-established element of the guarantee of due process of law. "2. No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. "3. All are entitled to be informed as to what the state commands or forbids. "4. A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. "5. The constitutional guarantee of equal rights under the law (see Art. 1, §§ 2 and 3, Wyoming Constitution) will not tolerate a criminal law so lacking in definition that each defendant is left to the vagaries of individual judges and juries."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Laude · Sorenson v. State“(b) The prosecution shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged and the mental responsibility of the defendant. However, every defendant is presumed to be mentally responsible and the burden of first going forward and entering evidence on the issue of mental responsibility is upon the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Flores v. State · Kind v. State“Appellant does not suggest that the act is indivisible, and there has been no showing that it is unconstitutional as a whole. Furthermore, deletion of this section would not destroy the purposes of the act. Therefore, we find a constitutional encroachment only with respect to § 7-242.5(a), supra. See Holm v. State, Wyo., 404 P.2d 740, at 743-745 . We further hold that the last sentence contained in § 7-242.5(a), supra, does not bear the taint which we find objectionable in the preceding portions of the section. Since this portion of the section is a necessary part of the amended procedure in mental-illness or deficiency cases, it shall be retained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State · Rutti v. State
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.