84 Wash. 2d 901 - State v. Koome’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976), Bellotti v. Baird (1976)
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 28 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 Roe v. Wade · Gault · Stanley v. Illinois · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the family structure is a fundamental institution of our society, and parental prerogatives are entitled to considerable legal deference, they are not absolute and must yield to fundamental rights of the child or important interests of the State.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Prima facie, the constitutional rights of minors, including the right of privacy, are coextensive with those of adults. Where minors’ rights have been held subject to curtailment by the state in excess of that permissible in the case of adults it has been because some peculiar state interest existed in the regulation and protection of children, not because the rights themselves are of some inferior kind. . In some other cases minors’ rights have been differentiated from those of adults because of a fundamental difference in the nature of the particular state interaction with juveniles. Several courts have upheld minors’ privacy rights where no such special context or state interest existed. . Recognition of the equal status of the rights of minors seems particularly necessary with regard to the privacy rights involved here. . [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The fact that personal abilities and mental faculties develop gradually does not mean that the State cannot create age limits which do not perfectly correspond with the capacity of minors to act as adults .... In many areas the state has a strong interest in restricting the activities of infants unable to exercise mature judgment, a subjective inquiry into the maturity of each individual minor is a practical impossibility, and any flat age limit is necessarily arbitrary. Cf., Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 142 , 91 S. Ct. 260 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1970) (Douglas, J.[, dissenting]); Seattle v. Pullman, 82 Wn.2d 794, 810 , 514 P.2d 1059 (1973) (Hunter, J., dissenting). In such circumstances imprecision in age classifications may be permissible, perhaps even where important rights are affected, because it is inevitable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.