Davis v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The concern of this court for the preservation of these [parental] rights has been expressed over a long period of time .... [W]e recognized the rights of parents of good moral character, however poor and humble they might be, if able to support their child in their own style of life, not, as a cardinal principle of law and nature, to be deprived of parental privileges, except when urgendy necessary to afford the child reasonable protection. Parental rights and the integrity of the family unit have always been a concern of this state and their protection regarded as a proper function of the court. They have been classified as essential rights, basic civil rights, and personal rights more precious than property rights. They have been said to be fundamental rights .... Certainly there remains no lingering doubt about the fact that the rights of parents to the care, custody and upbringing of their children are the subject of constitutional protection on both due process and equal protection standards.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. Arkansas Social Services · Schaible v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2. ““[W]here standards for termination of parental rights are the subject of the statute involved, the application of ‘vagueness’ tests should lie somewhere between that given criminal law statutes and that given statutes regulating business, i.e., permitting greater flexibility than where criminal law statutes are involved and less flexibility than with business-regulatory statutes. See Minor Children of F. B. v. Caruthers, 323 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. App. 1959). This is because any parent should have some basic understanding of his obligations to his children, but many cannot be as alert to, and aware of, prevailing practices basic to establishment of standards as those engaging in business would likely be to settled and well understood standards and practices. Mathematical certainty in language is not to be expected in any statute. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra. See also, Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 , 65 S.Ct. 666 , 89 L.Ed. 944 (1945). Flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity or great exactitude, in a statute are permissible, so long as its reach is clearly delineated in words of common understanding. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra; Minor Children of F. B. v. Caruthers, 323 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. App. 1959). A statute which defines boundaries sufficiently distinct for citizens, policemen, juries and appellate judges is not impermissibly vague. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra. Impossible standards of specificity are not required by the co”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. Arkansas Social Services · In the Interest of Brooks

3. “In criminal cases, placing discretion in the hands of the police without prescribing any standards governing its exercise is another instance which renders a statute void for vagueness. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra [ 405 U.S. 156 , 92 S.Ct. 839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972)].... A law which, due to vagueness, leaves basic policy matters in the criminal law field to either policemen or judges on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application, is also impermissible. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra [ 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)]. A law that is so vague and standardless that it leaves judges or jurors free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is prohibited and what is not in each particular case fails to meet due process requirements. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 , 86 S.Ct. 518 , 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). See also, Andrew Jackson, ex parte, 45 Ark. 158 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trice v. City of Pine Bluff