State v. Murtes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Hence, it is sufficient to say that a criminal statute, in order to be valid and enforceable, must define the offense so specifically and accurately that any reader having ordinary intelligence will know when or where his conduct is on the one side or the other of the borderline between that which is and that which is not denounced as an offense against the law. * * * ” State v. Murtes, 232 La. 486 , 94 So.2d 446 . “The right to measure one’s conduct by a reasonably clear standard permeates our system of criminal justice. The posting of criminal laws high on a semantic wall beyond the vision of the people cannot be given judicial sanction.” State v. Robertson, 241 La. 249 , 128 So.2d 646 . “It is well settled that the determination or definition of acts which are punishable as crimes is a purely legislative function which cannot be delegated to, or exercised by, the courts. For, as pointed out in United States v. Reese, supra [ 92 U.S. 214, 221 , 23 L.Ed. 563 ], it would ‘certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.’ ” State v. Truby, 211 La. 178 , 29 So.2d 758, 765 . See, State v. Whitlock, 193 La. 1044 , 192 So. 697 ; State v. Gaster, 45 La.Ann. 636 , 12 So. 739 ; State v. Vanicor, 239 La. 357 , 118 So.2d 438 ; State v. Vallery, 212 La. 1095 , 34 So.2d 329 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 378 So. 2d 414 - State v. Dousay · State v. Deutch

2. “"Laws which prohibit the doing of things and provide a punishment for their violation, should have no double meaning." * * * * * * "If the Legislature undertakes to define by statute a new offense and provide for its punishment, it should express its will in language that need not deceive the common mind. Every man should be able to know with certainty when he is committing a crime." * * * * * * "It would certainly be dangerous if the Legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set at large. This would, to some extent, substitute the Judicial for the Legislative Department of the Government."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 221 So. 2d 534 - City of Natchitoches v. State

3. “[i]t is well settled that the determination or definition of acts which are punishable as crimes is a purely legislative function which cannot be delegated to, or exercised by, the courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 378 So. 2d 414 - State v. Dousay