Thompson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1995
20 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 Prichard v. Battle · Commonwealth v. Ellett · In Re Revocation of License to Operate a Motor Vehicle of Wright · Fox v. Scheidt · Commonwealth v. Harris
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The question as to whether the revocation of a license because of an act for which the licensee has been convicted or because of the conviction itself is an added punishment has frequently been before the courts. The universal holding is that such a revocation is not an added punishment, but is a finding that by reason of the commission of the act or the conviction of the licensee, the latter is no longer a fit person to hold and enjoy the privilege which the State had theretofore granted to him under its police power. The authorities agree that the purpose of the revocation is to protect the public and not to punish the licensee.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Myers · State v. Sinner“"`The general rule is that where augmented punishments are provided for a second offense the fact that the first offense was committed before the enactment of the statute does not render the application of the statute violative of the ex post facto prohibition. "`A statute prescribing a heavier punishment for second offenders is not invalid as ex post facto, even though the first offense was previously committed; the punishment is of the second offense only, but is more severe because of the class in which the defendant placed himself by his first offense.' Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Section 2306."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Haverluk
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.