Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Ohio App. 2d 77 - State v. Kasnett

30 Ohio App. 2d 77 - State v. Kasnett’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
5
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Dutton v. Evans · 143 Ohio St. 312 - Sears v. Weimer · McDonald v. Thompson · Nicholas Halter v. State of Nebraska

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

  1. ““On the vagueness question, we believe the statute admitted of that degree of reasonable certainty that could constitute a violation, so that it can not be said that a person possessing a reasonable degree of intelligence could not understand what conduct would be disrespectful to the flag and what conduct would not. We are of the opinion that wearing the flag, or part of it, on that part of the clothing covering the human fundament, a part of the human body universally and historically considered unclean, and the object of derision and scorn and the reference to which in a certain tenor is often the source of fighting words, was a clear act of defilement in that the flag was thus dishonored; that the idea of dishonorment was one of the keys to the question of whether the flag was defiled. We must conclude that the use of the word ‘defile’ in the subject statute was intended to include public conduct which brings shame or disgrace upon the flag by its use for an unpatriotic or profane purpose. It is our opinion that the wearing of a flag on the seat of one’s pants, under the circumstances of this case, is a physical act which defiles the flag in violation of R. C. 2921.05. Such a use of the flag would degrade and cheapen it in the eyes of the people, as well as defeat the object of maintaining it as an emblem of national power and honor. Halter v. Nebraska (1907), 205 U.S. 34 , 27 S.Ct. 419 , 51 L.Ed. 696 . Similarly People v. Cowgill (1969), 274 Cal.App.2d Supp., 923 , 78 Ca”
    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.