State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

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.

1. ““That part of G. S. 1935, 21-818, providing that ‘any person who shall knowingly and willfully commit any irregularity or fraud whatever with the intent to hinder, prevent or defeat a fair expression of the popular will’ at any election ‘shall be deemed guilty of a felony’ does not contravene either the fifth or fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States or the fifth or tenth sections of the bill of rights of the constitution of Kansas, for the reason that it forbids the doing of any act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, nor for the reason it is not sufficiently explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” (Syl. jf 4.) (Italics supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ashton · State v. Anderson

2. ““ ‘1. A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, lacks the first essential of due process of law. . . .’”(1. c. 448.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hill · State v. Anderson

3. ““The question of unconstitutionality for vagueness and uncertainty was again before this court in State v. Rogers, 142 Kan. 841 , 52 P. 2d 1185 , where a statute with reference to unlawful allowance of claims against the county was invoked. (G. S. 1935,. 19-242.) In that decision many cases bearing on the question are noted. We need not review the decision fully. This court held that the use of the phrase ‘according to the legal or ordinary compensation or price’ etc., was not so vague or indefinite as to subject the statute to condemnation as being unconstitutional, the word ‘ordinary’ being held to have a common and accepted meaning. The same question raised in the Rogers case was before this court in State v. Millhaubt, 144 Kan. 574 , 61 P. 2d 1356 , and the ruling in the Rogers case was adhered to. A petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of the United States was denied in Millhaubt v. Kansas, 301 U. S. 701 , 57 S. Ct. 931 , 81 L. Ed. 1356 , and a rehearing was denied in 302 U. S. 773 , 58 S. Ct. 5 , 82 L. Ed. 599 .” (p. 40.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ashton