Commonwealth v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`to serve notice, either orally or in writing, to any person who is found on Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority property when such person is not a resident, employee, or such person cannot demonstrate a legitimate business or social purpose for being on the premises. Such notice shall forbid the person from returning to the property. Finally, Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority authorizes Richmond Police Department officers to arrest any person for trespassing after such person, having been duly notified, either stays upon or returns to Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority property.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Va. App. 170 - Sharron Kelson v. Commonwealth · Virginia v. Hicks

2. “also prohibits speech and conduct that are clearly protected by the First Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jaynes v. Com. · Virginia v. Hicks

3. “A facial challenge to a statute ... can proceed under two different doctrines. “First, the overbreadth doctrine permits the facial invalidation of laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when ‘judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep’.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 , 119 S. Ct. 1849 (1999) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 , 37 L. Ed. 2d 830 , 93 S. Ct. 2908 (1973)). Under the second doctrine, even if a statute is not overbroad (i.e., it “does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct”), “it may be impermissibly vague because it fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests.” Id. (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 , 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 , 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Simone