State v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No ex-post facto law * * * shall ever be passed * * *.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 66 Or. App. 953 - State v. House · State v. Moyle

2. “Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, mail or other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mary Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Adult Probation · State v. Moyle

3. “"[W]e find that paragraph (c) itself communicates either too little or too much, apart from the claimed restraint of freedom of speech. The state and the Court of Appeals rely on the requirement of a specific intent to `harass, annoy or alarm another person' to save the statute from impermissible vagueness. But specification of the element of intent does nothing to define what someone who wishes to harass, annoy or alarm another may not do in pursuit of that disagreeable aim. True enough, his intent makes his defense of lack of fair notice less appealing, but it does not meet it; and the argument fails to address the other reasons mentioned above for requiring legislative specification of crimes. "Examination of paragraph (c) shows that the communication proscribed by the statute need not cause any harm at all, in the form of annoyance, alarm, or otherwise. It is sufficient if the manner of communication is in fact `likely' to do so, whether the defendant knew this or not. Messages that are likely to cause `annoyance' or `alarm' are almost limitless; we will not burden this opinion with hypothetical examples of letters from creditors, employers, angry parents, disappointed customers, jealous lovers, or followers of opposing athletic teams that could theoretically lead to filing a criminal complaint. Nor is the statute limited to intentionally causing or attempting to cause another such actual distress after knowing, from an earlier attempt or otherwise, that one's act will do”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 429 So. 2d 603 - Donley v. City of Mountain Brook