Dickson v. Sitterson’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 50 U.S.C. § 781
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY · Shelton v. Tucker · Speiser v. Randall
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is firmly established that a statute ‘which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application * * * ’ violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of vagueness. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 , 46 S.Ct. 126, 127 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Moreover, standards of permissible statutory vagueness are particularly strict when First Amendment rights are involved. N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963); Smith v. People of State of California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959). While the question of vagueness has most frequently arisen in criminal prosecutions, it has been applied in a variety of other situations where the obedience to a rule or standard has been exacted. A. B. Small Company v. American Sugar Refining Co., 267 U.S. 233 , 45 S.Ct. 295 , 69 L.Ed. 589 (1925); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 , 86 S.Ct. 1238 , 16 L.Ed.2d 321 (1966). ****** “Loyalty oaths have recently been declared unconstitutional because of vagueness in the cases of Baggett v. Bullit, 377 U.S. 360 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) and Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 , 86 S.Ct. 1238 , 16 L.Ed.2d 321 (1966). In Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 184 , 19 L.Ed.2d 228 (1967), the Supreme Court, in another teacher oath ease, again emphasized the need for ‘precision and clar”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.