23 Or. App. 433 - State v. Debnam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[L]oitering’ as a criterion of criminal conduct is an incomprehensible standard and “ ‘ * * * is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926).’ Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 , 91 S.Ct. 1686, 1688 , 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Switzer v. City of Tulsa

2. “"* * * in or near a school building * * *, not having any reason or relationship involving custody of or responsibility for a student, or, upon inquiry by a peace officer or school official, not having a specific, legitimate reason for being there * * *,"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of D.

3. “"* * * mere presence of a person in or near a school grounds for a purpose not related to the custody or responsibility of a student does not necessarily manifest a purpose to commit a specific crime. * * *" 23 Or. App. at 436-37 , 542 P.2d at 941 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of D.