Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 NW2D 449 - State v. Colvin

State v. Colvin’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
3
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

43 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Murphy · State v. Olson · State v. Soto · State v. Ihle · State v. Haas

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

  1. “Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section: (a) “child” .means a person 15 years of age or younger; (b) “sexual conduct” means sexual contact of. the individual’s primary genital area, sexual penetration as defined in section 609.341, or sexual performance as defined in section 617.246; and c) “solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person in person, by telephone, by letter,' or by computerized or other electronic means. Subd. 2. Prohibited act. A person 18 years of age or older who solicits a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct with intent to engage in sexual conduct is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. Subd. 3. Defenses. Mistake as to age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice ... if: .... (b) the burglar possesses, when entering or at any time while in the building, ... a dangerous weapon.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a court adjudicating a burglary charge based on a violation of an OFP must determine that the OFP violation constituted something more than mere entry into the home in order to support the burglary charge.”
    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.