State v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When a state chooses to regulate matters involving sensitive rights of its citizens, it is obligated to do so in a manner that bears a real and substantial relationship to the objective sought [citation omitted] and is narrowly drawn to express only those objectives [citation omitted]. We hold the dissemination and promotion of such devices for purposes of medical and psychological therapy to be a constitutionally protected activity. As the legislature made no provision for such acts, those sections dealing with obscene devices were properly found to be overbroad and unconstitutional. The State has demonstrated no interest in the broad prohibition of distributing the devices in question sufficiently compelling to justify to infringement of the rights of those seeking to use them in legitimate ways.” 246 Kan. at 619-20. “A statute is overbroad when its language criminalizes constitutionally protected conduct. . . . The overbreadth doctrine generally has been held to apply only in First Amendment contexts. [Citation omitted.] In Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 645 , 772 P.2d 758 , cert. denied 493 U.S. 976 (1989), we held a city ordinance regulating ownership of pit bull dogs could not be attacked as overbroad because the owners’ rights did not fall under the First Amendment. “Nevertheless, the overbreadth doctrine has been applied by the United States Supreme Court where the operation of a statute infringes on freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, where tho”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 703 - DPR, INC. v. City of Pittsburg

2. “Nevertheless, the overbreadth doctrine has been applied by the United States Supreme Court where the operation of a statute infringes on freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, where those freedoms involve privacy rights and medical matters.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re A.B.

3. “[t]he legislature cannot make a device automatically obscene merely through the use of labels”); State v. Hughes, 246 Kan. 607 , 792 P.2d 1023 , 1031 (Kan.1990) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle