Doe v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 state decisions

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The concept of equal protection espoused by the federal and our state constitutions guarantees that ‘all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’ F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 , 40 S.Ct. 560, 562 , 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920); see Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 , 102 S.Ct. 2382 , 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982); State ex rel. Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Wright, 736 S.W.2d 84 (Tenn.1987). Conversely, things which are different in fact or opinion are not required by either constitution to be treated the same. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216 , 102 S.Ct. at 2394 . ‘The initial discretion to determine what is ‘different’ and what is ‘the same’ resides in the legislatures of the States,’ and legislatures are given considerable latitude in determining what groups are different and what groups are the same. Id. In most instances the judicial inquiry into the legislative choice is limited to whether the classifications have a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. Id.; see State v. Southern Fitness and Health, Inc., 743 S.W.2d 160, 164 (Tenn.1987); Harrison v. Schrader, 569 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tenn.1978).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tester · State v. Whitehead

2. “Although the language'of these provisions is different, the “law of the land” provision of [a]rticle I, [section] 8 of the Tennessee Constitution has been construed as synonymous with the “due process of law" provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution only establish a minimum level of protection, and this Court, as the final arbiter of the Tennessee Constitution, is always free to expand the minimum level of protection mandated by the federal constitution,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Latickia Tashay Burgins

3. “In determining whether the confinement involved ... is punishment ... [e]ourts must decide whether the confinement is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is an incident of a legitimate governmental purpose. Where ... no showing of an express intent to punish is made ... “that determination ... tum[s] on Vhether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Coolidge