State v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Hearn v. City of Overland Park (1989), In Re Comfort (2007)
35 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 United States v. Harriss · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Kirby · Wilbanks v. State · Brown v. Hardin
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 35 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 such warnings 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. The underlying principle supporting this test is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be prohibited. State v. Stauffer Communications, Inc., 225 Kan. at 546; State v. Gunzelman, 210 Kan. 481 , Syl. ¶ 2, 502 P.2d 705 , 58 A.L.R.3d 522 (1972). This test is consistent with that recognized by the United States Supreme Court. See, United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 98 L.Ed. 989 , 74 S.Ct. 808 (1954). “When considering the validity of a statute the court starts with a presumption of constitutionality; all doubts must be resolved in favor of validity of the statute, and before it can be stricken a clear showing must be made that the statute violates the constitution. State v. Kirby, 222 Kan. at 3-4.” pp. 91-92.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lackey · State v. Dargatz“a trial court 'need not define every word or phrase in the instructions. It is only when the instructions as a whole would mislead the jury, or cause them to speculate, that additional terms should be defined.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ervin“[a] term which is widely 43 used and which is readily comprehensible need not have a defining instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ballantyne
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.