Kinney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2014
10 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.
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on Screws v. United States · United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. · United States v. Lampley · 172 Ind. App. 397 - Hunter v. State · Inman v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"HARASSMENT. — (a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication: (1) makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues . . . commits harassment. . . ." 404 N.E.2d, at 50 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Schnitz v. State · Brehm v. State“"... The Court, indeed, has recognized that the requirement of a specific intent to do a prohibited act may avoid those consequences to the accused which may otherwise render a vague or indefinite statute invalid. The constitutional vice in such a statute is the essential injustice to the accused of placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which the statute does not define and hence of which it gives no warning.... But where the punishment imposed is only for an act knowingly done with the purpose of doing that which the statute prohibits, the accused cannot be said to suffer from lack of warning or knowledge that the act which he does is a violation of law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. McBurney · Brown v. State“"The harassment statute which is being challenged in this case forbids a specific act, a telephone call, when it is accompanied by a specific intent, `to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication.' This specific intent prevents the statute from being unconstitutionally vague. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, "`. . . An evil motive to accomplish that which the statute condemns becomes a constituent element of the crime. . . . [Citations omitted]”
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.