State v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2014
2 federal appellate · 8 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 28 Cal. 2d 699 - People v. Simmons · State v. Huffman · State Ex Rel. Murray v. Palmgren · State v. Kirby · In the Interest of Brooks
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he constitutionality of a statute is presumed; all doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before a statute may be stricken it must clearly appear there is a constitutional violation. We have gone on to say, in determining constitutionality, it is the court’s duty to uphold the statute under attack rather than defeat it. If there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, it should be done. Statutes are not stricken unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1 , 642 P.2d 91 (1982); In re Brooks, 228 Kan. 541, 543 , 618 P.2d 814 (1980); State v. Huffman, 228 Kan. 186, 189 , 612 P.2d 630 (1980); Colby Distributing Co. v. Lennen, 227 Kan. 179, 186-87 , 606 P.2d 102 (1980); State v. Meinert, 225 Kan. 816, 817 , 594 P.2d 232 (1979). “Against this background let us examine the rules regarding vagueness and overbreadth: “ ‘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. At ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.