260 Mich. App. 201 - People v. Tombs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A statute may be challenged for vagueness on three grounds: (1) it does not provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed; (2) it confers on the trier of fact unstructured and unlimited discretion to determine whether an offense has been committed; (3) its coverage is overbroad and impinges on First Amendment freedoms. Id., 260 Mich.App. at 218 , 679 N.W.2d 77 , citing People v. Howell, 396 Mich. 16, 20 , 238 N.W.2d 148 (1976), and Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 108-109, 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Nichols

2. “[V]agueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Nichols

3. “This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute under the void-for-vagueness doctrine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Nichols