State v. Sturch’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2016
1 federal appellate · 10 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Dandridge v. Williams · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Shapiro v. Thompson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent explicatory legislative history, we may consider how the legislature would have intended the legislation to be applied. “If, after consideration of text, context, and legislative history, the intent of the legislature remains unclear, then the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty.... Those include, for example, the maxim that, where no legislative history exists, the court will attempt to determine how the legislature would have intended the statute to be applied had it considered the issue.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a] suspect classification exists where the class of individuals formed has been “saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritari-an political process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a criminal statute is void for vagueness unless it: 1) gives the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited so that he or she may act accordingly, and 2) provides explicit standards for those who apply the statute, in order to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and the delegation of basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Beltran
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.