Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 970 FSUPP 1153 - ALAN A. v. Verniero

ALAN A. v. Verniero’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
4
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

1 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Blockburger v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · Younger v. Harris · Roe v. Wade

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

  1. ““The humiliation and shame felt by the offender originates in the underlying crimes committed, not in the notification procedure or in the reaction of the public to such conduct. See Doe v. Kelley, 961 F. Supp. 1105, 1110 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (“Unlike historical uses of branding, shaming and banishment, the notification provisions do not affirmatively impose any suffering, restraint or obligation on the offender”). Although ostracism may be a possible consequence of notification, that is not the intended purpose of Megan’s Law. It is simply result-oriented sophistry to argue the Act was designed or implemented to promote ostracism. If ostracism occurs, it is the direct, foreseeable result of the abhorrent conduct of an offender. “As well, there are numerous ‘critical, dispositive differences’ between community notification and the ‘public shaming’ punishments of the colonial era. [Citation omitted.] Unlike Megan’s Law, the historical punishment of public shaming lacked a remedial purpose and served solely to punish an individual through degradation. Historic shaming punishment was widespread as notification was made to the whole of society. Megan’s Law, in contrast, is tailored to limit notification, if it occurs at all, to protect those most vulnerable and ‘likely to encounter the offender.’ [Citation omitted.] Finally, the effects of the historical shaming punishment were inevitable as they were ‘an integral part of the sentence.’ [Citation omitted.] The repercussions of Megan”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Megan’s Law is a remedial measure designed to protect society, not to brand or banish. The notification that occurs is calibrated to the offender’s risk of re-offense through a series of procedures. Any stigma associated with having a criminal record, comes from the commission of the crime itself, not from the notification imposed through the Act.” 970 F. Supp. at 1193 .”
    1 later decision 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.