State v. Scruggs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] statute is not void for vagueness unless it clearly and unequivocally is unconstitutional, making every presumption in favor of its validity.... To demonstrate that [a statute] is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, the [defendant] therefore must ... demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] had inadequate notice of what was prohibited or that [he was] the victim of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.... If the meaning of a statute can be fairly ascertained a statute will not be void for vagueness since [m]any statutes will have some inherent vagueness, for [i]n most English words and phrases there lurk uncertainties.... Moreover, an ambiguous statute will be saved from unconstitutional vagueness if the core meaning of the terms at issue may be elucidated from other sources, including other statutes, published or unpublished court opinions in this state or from other jurisdictions, newspaper reports, television programs or other public information .... [A] term is not void for vagueness merely because it is not expressly defined in the relevant statutory scheme.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Campbell

2. “[u]nder the 'situation' [part] of § 53-21 [ (a) (1) ], the state need not prove actual injury to the child. Instead, it must * prove that the defendant wilfully created a situation that posed a risk to the child's [life, limb] health or morals .... The situation [part] of § 53-21 [ (a) (1) ] encompasses the protection of the body as well as the safety and security of the environment in which the child exists, and for which the adult is responsible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. James E.

3. “A statute ... [that] forbids or requires conduct in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process.... Laws must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Campbell