Locklin v. Pridgeon’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably State v. Wershow (1977), 257 So. 2d 21 - Franklin v. State (1971)
80 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Screws v. United States · Smith v. Cahoon · Cook v. State
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The infirmity in the statute is that it is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to constitute notice of the crime or crimes or unlawful acts which it purports to prohibit. The statute prescribes no ascertainable standard of guilt. Under the provisions of this Act an officer or employee is just as amenable to prosecution for an act done in good faith, when that act is not specifically authorized by law, as he would be for the commission of an act done with evil intent and wilfully done in violation of law. So the determination of a standard of guilt is left to be supplied by courts or juries. This is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. " (Emphasis supplied.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cuda v. State · State v. Cuda“any act under color or authority as an officer ... when such act is not authorized by law.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cuda v. State · Brake v. State“"It appears to be generally conceded that a statute, especially a penal statute, must be definite to be valid. In 12 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, page 282, Sec. 585, it is said: "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."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barquet · State v. Foster
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.