State v. Plowman’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), 122 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Halstien (1993)
5 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
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.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`must be scrutinized to determine whether it appears to reach privileged communication or whether it can be interpreted to avoid such "overbreadth.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“between laws that focus on the content of speech or writing and laws that focus on the pursuit or accomplishment of forbidden results .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`The terms of a criminal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it of what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.' State v. Graves, 299 Or 189, 195 , 700 P2d 244 (1985). A `reasonable degree of certainty' about what conduct falls within the statute's prohibition is required; absolute certainty is not. State v. Cornell/Pinnell, 304 Or 27, 29-30 , 741 P2d 501 (1987). In addition to giving fair notice of prohibited conduct, a criminal statute must not be so vague as to allow a judge or jury unbridled discretion to decide what conduct to punish. Id. at 29 [ 741 P.2d 501 ]. A law that gives such unbridled discretion to judges and juries offends the principle against ex post facto laws embodied in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution, and the principle against standardless and unequal application of criminal laws embodied in Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Graves, supra, 299 Or at 195 [ 700 P.2d 244 ].”
2 later decisions 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.