Palmer v. City of Euclid’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 12 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Maynard v. Cartwright (1988), Landman v. Royster (1971)
82 federal appellate · 12 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Harriss · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Byrne v. Karalexis · Wright v. State of Georgia
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed. “On the other hand, if the general class of offenses to which the statute is directed is plainly within its terms, the statute will not be struck down as vague even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied [to Defendants], it failed to give `a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.