Lawrence v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 47 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “cannot be used to ‘argue that the prosecution could not prove one of the elements of the crime,’ ” and a pre-trial proceeding should not be a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nathan G. Mims v. State · State of Texas v. Rosseau, Robert Louis

2. “[D]id then and there intentionally and knowingly cause serious bodily injury to [the Complainant] ... by shaking the Complainant with the Defendant’s hands, a deadly weapon, and did, intentionally and knowingly cause serious bodily injury to [the Complainant] ... by causing forceful trauma to the Complainant’s head in a manner and means unknown to the Grand Jury, and during the course of the offense the Defendant did use a deadly weapon, the nature and description of which is unknown to the Grand Jury....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perez v. State

3. “A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offense “with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not permit arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” If, as in this case, a statute does not substantially implicate constitutionally protected conduct or speech, it is valid unless it is “impermissibly vague in all applications” or as applied to the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Taylor