State v. Melchert-Dinkel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]his signifies a level of involvement in the suicide beyond merely expressing a moral viewpoint or providing general comfort or support. Rather, 'assist,' by its plain meaning, involves enabling the person to commit suicide.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of Welfare of A. J. B. · 370 F. Supp. 3d 995 - Final Exit Network, Inc. v. Ellison

2. “the common definitions of “advise” and “encourage” broadly include speech that provides support or rallies courage.... Furthermore, the “advise[]” and “encourage[ ]” prohibitions are broad enough to permit the State to prosecute general discussions of suicide with specific individuals or groups. Speech in support of suicide, however distasteful, is an expression of a viewpoint on a matter of public concern....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jeffrey Wayne Fujisaka v. State

3. “(1) is justified by a compelling government interest and (2) is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The [s]tate must specifically identify an actual problem in need of solving, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution. In other words, [t]here must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Minnesota v. Krista Ann Muccio