State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2022
19 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Heywood v. Brainard · State ex rel. English v. Ruback · State v. Nelson · Bessey v. Board of Educational Lands and Funds
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The test for determining whether a statute is vague is whether it 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. ... A statute will not be deemed vague if it uses ordinary terms which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. ... In determining whether a statute is vague and therefore does not give a defendant adequate notice that his conduct is proscribed, the statute must be examined in light of the conduct with which the defendant is charged____ “. . . The prohibition against vagueness does not invalidate a statute simply because it could have been drafted with greater precision. The test is whether the defendant could reasonably understand that his conduct was proscribed by the statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schmailzl“The language of the Model Penal Code is certainly much clearer than that adopted by the Nebraska Legislature. An actor violates the Model Penal Code when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, with the intent to terrorize another, regardless of what the outcome of the act will be or of how the victim receives the threat. The Model Penal Code seems to be fairly definite, and not speculative as is the statute in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Schmailzl““(a) He threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to another person or likely to result in substantial property damage to another person; or “(b) He intentionally makes false statements with the intent of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation. “(2) Terroristic threats is a Class IV felony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fisher
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.