State v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2002
1 district · 7 state decisions
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
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robinson“If the terms of a penal statute are so vague and indefinite as to render uncertain its meaning, it must be condemned as repugnant to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Deedon
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.