State v. Koetting’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2016
18 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 Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley · Cohen v. California · Rowan v. United States Post Office Department · Brown v. Craven
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The word “offensive” is defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (3rd Ed.) as: “causing, or such as to cause, displeasure or resentment; insulting, disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or af.fronting insultingness.” While courts may recognize a widespread use of profane and vulgar language, the determination of a word’s criminal offensiveness must be based on an examination of the circumstances in which it is spoken. Karp v. Collins, 310 F.Supp. 627, 637 [9] (D.N.J.1970); State v. Hastings, 133 Vt. 118 , 330 A.2d 87, 89 (1974). The speaker’s intention, the source, the location and the direction of the remark are all relevant factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Yeargain
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.