Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Amador v. State (2007), Burden v. State (2001)
39 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 Burks v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Miller v. California · Leary v. United States · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character. (f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kramer v. State · Gholson v. State““A person who promotes obscene material or possesses the same with intent to promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gonzales v. State · Green v. State“who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material ... or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. 511 Detroit Street, Inc., and Executive Art Studios, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Frank J. Kelley, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General, State of Michigan, (85-1279) Dequindre Books and News, Inc., and F.P. Books and News, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Hon. Frank J. Kelley, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General, State of Michigan, (85-1642) and L. Brooks Patterson, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, (85-1622) · 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley
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.