Hughes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining whether a statutory classification, not involving a suspect class or fundamental right, violates the equal protection [or due process] clause, we presume that the distinctions so created are valid. `A statutory discrimination or classification will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.'”

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

2. “Section 902. Purpose; construction. (a) In the firm belief that compliance with the law by the individual and preservation of the family as a unit are fundamental to the maintenance of a stable, democratic society, the General Assembly intends by enactment of this chapter that 1 court shall . have original statewide civil and criminal jurisdiction over family and child matters and offenses as set forth herein. The court shall endeavor to provide for each person coming under its jurisdiction such control, care, and treatment as will best serve the interests of the public, the family, and the offender, to the end that the home will, if possible, remain unbroken and the family members will recognize and discharge their legal and moral responsibilities to the public and to one another. (b) This chapter shall be liberally construed that these purposes may be realized. (Del. Code Ann., tit. 10, § 902 (1953); 58 Del. Laws 1U (1971)).”

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

3. “First, under Section 1010(a)(1), children, regardless of age, who are charged with the most serious felonies, as designated by the statute, are prosecuted as adults. Second, under Section 1010(a)(2), the Family Court has the discretion to transfer the case of a child over sixteen years of age to the Superior Court for trial as an adult if the court concludes that the child is not amenable to the Family Court processes. Under the statute, the Family Court conducts a so-called amenability hearing, initiated upon motion of the Attorney General or by the court, sua sponte, to determine independently whether the child will benefit from the `rehabilitative processes of the Court.' § 1010(c).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Concepcion, No. Cr 96159081 (Jun. 17, 1996)