State v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, [the statute] only applies to persons required to register as sex offenders in South Dakota, a meticulously defined class of individuals. Compare Morales, 527 U.S. at 62-63 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 . Second, by defining the term “community safety zone,” [the statute] describes the precise area to which [the statute] applies. The statute does not use amorphous terms like “neighborhood” or “locality,” which are “elastic and dependent upon the circumstances.” See Connally v. Gen. Constr, Co., 269 U.S. 385, 395 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926) (finding that vagueness in a criminal statute was exacerbated by use of the terms “neighborhood” and “locality”). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, [the statute] distinguishes between innocent and harmful conduct. By requiring that the loitering be “for the primary purpose of observing or' contacting minors,” the South Dakota Legislature limited the statute’s application to loitering that has an “apparently harmful purpose or effect.” Compare Morales, 527 U.S. at 62 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Valenti v. Hartford City · State of Iowa v. Darrell Allen Showens