150 Ohio App. 3d 5 - State v. Stallings’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 150 Ohio App. 3d 450 - State v. Bennett (2002), 153 Ohio App. 3d 121 - State v. Woodbridge (2003)
38 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Kolender v. Lawson · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Coates v. City of Cincinnati
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the basic principles of due process, a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Grayned v. Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104 , 108 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 . Further, a statute is void for vagueness if its terms invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson (1983), 461 U.S. 352 , 357 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 . However, a statute does not need to avoid all vagueness. See Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110 . As statutes are restricted to the use of words, there will always be uncertainties because we cannot expect strict certainty from our language. Id. Therefore, a statute will not be deemed void for vagueness if individuals of ordinary intelligence could comprehend it to the extent that it would fairly inform them as to the generally prohibited conduct. Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), 413 U.S. 601 , 607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 . The Ohio Supreme Court has specified that the void for vagueness doctrine implicates various values: "`First, to provide fair warning to the ordinary citizen so behavior may comport with the dictates of the statute; second, to preclude arbitrary, capricious and generally discriminatory enforcement by officials given too much authority and too few constraints; and third, to ensure the fundamental constitutionally protected freedoms are not unreasonably impinged or inhibited.' State v. Tanner (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to take part in something (as an enterprise or activity).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.