Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably State v. Bodyke (2010), Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (2017)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Kansas v. Hendricks · Hudson v. United States · Smith v. Doe
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, [2] whether it has historically been regarded as punishment, [3] whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, [4] whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence, [5] whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, [6] whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and [7] whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he short answer is that the Act imposes significant affirmative obligations and a severe stigma on every person to whom it applies.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until that presumption is clearly overcome by a contrary showing. The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute bears the burden of proof, and all doubts are resolved against that party. If two reasonable interpretations of a statute are available, one of which is constitutional and the other not, we will choose that path which permits upholding the statute because we will not presume that the legislature violated the constitution unless the unambiguous language of the statute requires that conclusion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.