State v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably 177 Ill. 2d 440 - City of Chicago v. Morales (1997), Wyche v. State (1993)
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Screws v. United States · Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman · Omaechevarria v. State of Idaho · In Re Cregler · Johnson v. Florida
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The offense defined by each of the two ordinances consists of two essential elements: (1) The act of lurking or loitering and (2) a proved intent to commit an unlawful act. Whatever the arguable ambiguity or generality as to the element of ‘lurking’ or ‘loitering,’ there is none whatever as to the element of intent. The element of intent gives a meaning to the element of lurking or loitering and is a rational basis for proscribing such acts as harmful conduct. Both elements of the offense must, of course, be proved. The overt act of lurking or loitering, standing alone, is not made punishable by the provisions of the ordinances under which defendant was charged. An unlawful intent, without more, is not made punishable. Because of this required union of overt act and unlawful intent, defendant is protected from punishment either for harmless conduct or for harmful conduct the criminality of which had not been fairly communicated to her. See Omaechevarria v. State of Idaho, 246 U.S. 343 , 38 S.Ct. 323 , 62 L.Ed. 763 ; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497 , 45 S.Ct. 141 , 69 L.Ed. 402 ; Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 , 65 S.Ct. 1031 , 89 L.Ed. 1495 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person shall loiter on the street or in a public place or in a place open to the public with intent to solicit for the purposes of prostitution or any other act prohibited by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.