State v. Dove’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably Matter of DT (1975), In re Neglect & Dependency of D.T. (1975)
29 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Ex parte Siebold · Robinson v. United States · Musser v. Utah · State v. Diamond
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the statute is unconstitutional appellant’s conviction cannot stand even though his atrocious offense is ‘abhorrent to the public morals and common decency’ however this uncertain phrase may be interpreted. If the statute is bad then there is no crime of first degree kidnapping defined by the law of South Dakota. Quite obviously there can be no lawful conviction for commission of an offense that does not exist. Conviction under an unconstitutional statute is a nullity.” 75 S.D. at 464 , 67 N.W.2d at 919 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The rule is of special and obvious importance when the punishment involved is death. As Mr. Justice Rutledge said in his dissent in Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282, 286 , 65 S.Ct. 666, 669 , 89 L.Ed. 944 , ‘If words ever need to be clear, they do when they perform this function.’ ” 75 S.D. at 463 , 67 N.W,2d at 919.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘ravish, or assault, or mutilate, or choke, or strangle or do other bodily harm or injury to the person so kidnapped as defined herein in such a manner and under such circumstances abhorrent to the public morals and common decency * * ” (emphasis supplied) 75 S.D. at 461 , 67 N.W.2d at 918 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.