Paul P. v. Farmer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendants ask the Court to overlook any deficiencies in the current system in light of the compelling purposes served by the Act. However, the procedural safeguards contained within the Attorney General Guidelines are crucial to maintaining the constitutional balance between plaintiffs’ privacy interests and the goals of the statute. See Fraternal Order of Police, 812 F.2d at 117 (“One of the crucial factors in weighing the competing interests referred to in Westinghouse is ‘the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized diselo-sure.’”)(quoting United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir.1980)). If, in practice, these safeguards fail to limit the release of plaintiffs’ home addresses to those persons with a statutorily defined need for this information, a different constitutional balance would result.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 92 F. Supp. 2d 410 - Paul P. v. Farmer · No. 00-5244

2. “[a] system of distributing this information with zero “leakage” to unauthorized persons is, in reality, unattainable. However, the mandate for the Attorney General is not to devise a perfect system, but one calculated to achieve the goals of the statute without unreasonably impinging on the “nontrivial” privacy interests of the plaintiffs. The record before this Court shows that the current system fails to meet this standard. Currently, there is no uniform method of distribution which ensures that, in all twenty-one counties, Megan’s Law notices will be distributed in a manner reasonably calculated to get the Information to those with “a particular need for it” while avoiding “disclosure to those who have no similar need.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paul P v. Farmer · P. v. Attorney Gen'l NJ

3. “(1) the Law lacks penalties to deter the unauthorized- disclosure of information; (2) there is no uniform requirement that the registration process occur in a setting which protects the registrant’s pri‘vacy; (3) many counties have inconsistent or unclear rules regarding which school staff members are entitled to receive information concerning Tier 2 offenders; (4) not all counties deliver Tier 3 notices by hand to an authorized adult; and (5) home addresses are included in all Tier 2 notices and are disclosed to all notice recipients despite the fact that this information is not needed by all recipients.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paul P v. Farmer · P. v. Attorney Gen'l NJ