Peters v. Breier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “its restrictions are sufficiently narrow so that under no reasonable construction or application should the ordinance itself be denominated unconstitutional. The ordinance carefully defines the area that is restricted and the hours of the curfew. It also provides for appropriate notice. It applies to all persons and cannot be condemned as selective or discriminatory. Unlike Portland v. James, 251 Or. 8, 444 P.2d 554 (1968), which broadly restricted the use of any street, alley, or public place, the ordinance in question carefully delimits the curfew to a small, localized area.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 Cal. App. 3d 1 - People v. Trantham

2. “[t]he right of the city to exclude the public from designated areas at designated times cannot be seriously questioned so long as the restriction is as narrowly defined as it is in the ordinance in question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 Cal. App. 3d 1 - People v. Trantham

3. “that any improper application of the ordinance would reflect, not its unconstitutionality, but rather the blundering of the constable. [Citation.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 Cal. App. 3d 1 - People v. Trantham