green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.8 score
“the primary consideration in prohibiting unlawful, consensual intercourse with an underage female has been traditionally attributed to the legislative desire to protect those who are too unsophisticated to protect themselves.”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Owens v. State
the primary consideration in prohibiting unlawful, consensual intercourse with an underage female has been traditionally attributed to the legislative desire to protect those who are too unsophisticated to protect themselves.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clifton N. Cherry, Et Ux. v. Wesley E. Steiner
(2×)
In Chino Valley II, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed an appeal from the Arizona Supreme Court for “want of a substantial federal question.” 457 U.S. at 1101, 102 S.Ct. at 2898.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimmy Allen Alewine v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, C.D. Joiner, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. City of MacOn
Co., 455 U.S. 678 , 102 S.Ct. 1349 , 71 L.Ed.2d 547 (1982).” - U.S. at -, 102 S.Ct. at 2897, 73 L.Ed.2d at 1309 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Donovan
The only state function specifically taken off the list is state operation of a commuter railroad. 6 LIRR, 102 S.Ct. at 1349.
examined
Cited "see"
Ruiz v. Hull
(4×)
See Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, 131 Ariz. 78, 84 , 638 P.2d 1324, 1330 (1981), appeal dismissed, 457 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 2897 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1310 , reh. denied, 459 U.S. 899 , 103 S.Ct. 199 , 74 L.Ed.2d 160 (1982), citing City of Tempe v. Prudential Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc.
(2×)
See Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, 131 Ariz. 78 , 638 P.2d 1324 (1981), appeal dismissed, 457 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 2897 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1310 , reh’g denied, 459 U.S. 899 , 103 S.Ct. 199 , 74 L.Ed.2d 160 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
See e.g., Henry v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1350, 1352 (Mont.), appeal dism’d sub nom Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Henry, 457 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct. 2898 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1310 (1982); Rucker v. Norfolk & Western Ry.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Williams
v.
Cheetwood & Davies
v.
Cheetwood & Davies
No. 81-1878.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 7, 1982.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Maryland (1)
Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Wood County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.