State v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably State v. Kirby (1977), State v. Campbell (1975)
1 federal appellate · 28 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. · Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania · State v. Hill · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Minns
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The test to determine whether a criminal statute is unconstitutionally void by reason of being vague and indefinite is whether its language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the conduct proscribed when measured by common understanding and practice. If a statute conveys this warning it is not void for vagueness. Conversely, a statute which either requires or forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is violative of due process.” (Syl. j[ 2.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) Indecent liberties with a child is engaging in either of the following acts with a child under the age of sixteen (16) years who is not the spouse of the offender: “(a) The act of sexual intercourse; “(h) Any fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender or both.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wells · State v. Sisson““[Lewd fondling or touching means] fondling or touching in a manner which tends to undermine the morals of the victim, which is so clearly offensive as to outrage the moral senses of a reasonable person, and which is done with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the victim or the offender or both. Lewd fondling or touching does not require contact with the sex organ of one or the other. [Citation omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dinh Loc Ta
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.