Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 SW3D 496 - State v. Holcombe

State v. Holcombe’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Lawrence v. State (2007), Maloney v. State (2009)

33 state decisions

200200620102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth))

Relationships

Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Grayned v. City of Rockford

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is a basic principle of due process that a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not permit arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Although a statute is not impermissibly vague because it fails to define words or phrases, it is invalid if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. Moreover, where, as here, a statute does not substantially implicate constitutionally protected conduct or speech, it is valid unless it is impermissibly vague in all applications.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of neighboring persons of ordinary sensibilities”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we initially look to dictionary definitions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re BW

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.