Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 SW2D 194 - McCarty v. State

McCarty v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
February 2002
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2002

17 state decisions

100198119902000decided

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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Dombrowski v. Pfister · United States v. Harriss

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

  1. “"Appellant argues that the evidence shows that it was the testifying officer, and not appellant, who made the offer. Although the record indicates the initial offer was made by the [officer], it also shows protracted `negotiations,' in which implied offers were made by both appellant and the [officer]. We find the evidence sufficient and overrule the ground of error." 616 S.W.2d at 197 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"... knowingly offer to engage in sexual conduct, namely: sexual intercourse and deviate sexual intercourse, with M.R. Hill, for a fee."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The definition of prostitution as being a person who engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee is not so vague as to make persons of common intelligence guess at its meaning. Although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any cost, they are set out in terms that can be sufficiently understood and complied with by the ordinary person exercising common sense. Moreover, even if the outermost boundaries of the statute may be imprecise, any such uncertainty has little relevance here where the defendant’s conduct falls squarely within the “hardcore” of the statute’s proscriptions.”
    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.