State v. Mauer’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252
Relies on New York v. Ferber · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Smith v. People of the State of California · Ginsberg v. New York · United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An ambiguity exists only where a statute's language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[b]ecause we cannot be certain that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law would support [the defendant's] conviction under our narrowing construction of 'reason to know ...' "). The language used by the juvenile court in its findings-intent to target, teach a lesson, harass, demean-fits the definition of abuse set forth in this opinion: "to maltreat[ ] a victim including by assailing or threatening with insults or hurtful words primarily aimed to injure or harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]e also conclude that now that we have articulated the standard to be used when applying [the statute at issue], the district court is in the best position to review the record and its findings and to reach a conclusion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.