Sodergren v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2008
17 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 Barker v. Wingo · Marks v. United States · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Smith v. Hooey · Frank v. Mangum
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.
““INSTRUCTION NO. 6 “Pertinent portions of the Wyoming Statutes provide as follows: “A Person knowingly taking immodest, immoral, or indecent liberties with any child is guilty of a crime. “INSTRUCTION NO. 7 “The necessary elements of the crime of knowingly taking immodest, immoral, or indecent liberties with a minor are: “with respect to Count 1; “1. That Freddie Lou Britt did, “2. on or between the dates of June 29, 1986, and July 6, 1986, “3. in Uinta County, Wyoming, “4. knowingly, “5. take immodest, immoral or indecent liberties, “6. with a child, namely one [RK]. “with respect to Count II; “1. That Freddie Lou Britt did, “2. on or between the dates of June 29, 1986, and July 6, 1986, “3. in Uinta County, Wyoming, “4. knowingly, “5. take immodest, immoral or indecent liberties, “6. with a child, namely [SB], “If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of the elements have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt then you must find the Defendant not guilty. “If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that all of the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt then you must find the Defendant guilty. “INSTRUCTION NO. 8 “ ‘Knowingly’ means with knowledge, consciously, intelligently, willfully, intentionally, and not by mistake.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Britt v. State“[W]e think it significant that the issue of construction involved here is not the drawing of a line between legal conduct and illegal conduct. What Knutson did was unlawful under any interpretation of Iowa law, and he makes no contention to the contrary. His position, reduced to its simplest terms, is that he had a right to expect that he would be convicted for kidnapping only, rather than for kidnapping for ransom. This kind of reliance interest is not, in our view, entitled to a great deal of weight. When a person does an act that he well knows to be a violation of some law, and when a statute is later interpreted to cover his conduct in a way that does not do violence to the ordinary understanding of the English language, the Fourteenth Amendment is not offended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Caddy“Our rule is that in the absence of fundamental error affecting a substantial right of the appellant or involving the jurisdiction of the court, we do not consider questions sought to be raised for the first time on appeal. Hopkinson v. State, Wyo., 664 P.2d 43 (1983), cert. denied [464] U.S. [908], 104 S.Ct. 262 , 78 L.Ed.2d 246 (1983); Nickelson v. People, Wyo., 607 P.2d 904 (1980); and Nisonger v. State, Wyo., 581 P.2d 1094 (1978). Furthermore, unless plain error is present, questions concerning the constitutionality of a statute are not considered on appeal if the party presenting them failed to present or argue the contentions in the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hyde v. State
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.