Doe v. Jindal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “IT IS HEREBY DECLARED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. The application of the Registration of Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, and Child Predators law (Registry Law), La.R.S. § 15:540 et seq., to those convicted of Crime Against Nature by Solicitation under La.R.S. § 14:89(A)(2) or La.R.S. § 14:89.2(A), and their inclusion on the State Sex Offender & Child Predator Registry (SOCPR) pursuant to La.R.S. § 15:542, deprives them of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 2. Defendants must cease and desist from placing any individuals convicted of Crime Against Nature by Solicitation under La.R.S. § 14:89(A)(2) or La.R.S. § 14:89.2(A) on the SOCPR; 3. This Judgment and Order does not apply to La.R.S. § 14:89.2(C); 4. Defendants LeBlane and Edmonson, in their official capacities must remove Plaintiffs from the SOCPR within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Judgment and Order, following the procedures laid out in paragraph 4 of the Protective Order ...; 5. Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of Defendants, are permanently enjoined from disclosing Plaintiffs’ prior inclusion on the SOCPR, and must remove Plaintiffs from any and all municipal, city and state databases which indicate that Plaintiffs were included on the SOCPR within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Judgment and Order; 6. Defendants LeBlane and Edmonson, in their official capa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 913 F. Supp. 2d 262 - Doe v. Caldwell

2. “The defendants also urge that the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to prostitutes because they have submitted no evidence regarding the underlying circumstances of their convictions. That argument conveniently ignores that the straightforward comparison for the plaintiffs, for Equal Protection purposes, is with those convicted of solicitation of Prostitution. [T]he defendants [also] assert that requiring sex offender registration protects the public's safety, health, and welfare. They insist that conviction is an imperfect indicator of the underlying charge and, because Crime Against Nature by Solicitation is a lesser offense to which other registrable offense's can be pleaded down to, it is possible that prosecutors pleaded down "more heinous" solicitation charges (such as solicitation of persons under 17 ...). The Court has no duty to indulge such patent hypothetical speculation; no suggestion exists in the record that the State legislature's purpose for requiring, those convicted of Crime Against Nature by Solicitation to register as sex offenders was anchored to a legislative desire that prosecutors plead down other registrable offenses....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 913 F. Supp. 2d 262 - Doe v. Caldwell

3. “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 913 F. Supp. 2d 262 - Doe v. Caldwell