Galloway v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 80 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A well grounded principle in federal constitutional law is that, when considering the void-for-vagueness doctrine, courts consistently consider two criteria or rationales. The first rationale is the fair notice principle that persons of ordinary intelligence and experience be afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that they may govern their behavior accordingly. The standard for determining whether a statute provides fair notice is whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the statute’s meaning. A statute is not vague under the fair notice principle if the meaning of the words in controversy can be fairly ascertained by reference to judicial determinations, the common law, dictionaries, treatises or even the words themselves if they possess a common and generally accepted meaning. The second criterion of the vagueness doctrine regards enforcement of the statute. This rationale exists to ensure that criminal statutes provide legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police, judicial officers, triers of fact and others whose obligation it is to enforce, apply and administer the penal laws. To survive analysis, a statute must eschew arbitrary enforcement in addition to being intelligible to the reasonable person.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Md. App. 26 - Jeandell v. State · Todd v. State

2. “(a) Prohibited.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not: (1) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person [¶]... ] (b) Exceptions.—This section does not prohibit [¶]... ] (2) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person to whom a permit to wear, carry, or transport the handgun has been issued under Article 27, § 36E [3] of the Code [¶]... ] (6) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides or within the confines of a business establishment that the person owns or leases [•••] (c) Penalty.— (1) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to the penalties provided in this subsection. (2) If the person has not previously been convicted under this section, § 4-204 of this subtitle, or § 4-101 or § 4-102 of this title: (i) except as provided in item (ii) of this paragraph, the person is subject to imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not exceeding 3 years or a fine of not less than $250 and not exceeding $2,500 or both [.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCree v. State · 188 Md. App. 691 - Williams v. State

3. “a statute violates a “mandatory provision” of the Constitution, “we are required to declare such an act unconstitutional and void.” ... Therefore, if it is established that the statute is vague — offends due process — and/or overbroad— sweeps within the ambit of constitutionally “protected expressive or associational rights” — then the statute is unconstitutional.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Todd v. State · 192 Md. App. 553 - Livingston v. State