Thomas F. Budd v. Frank I. Madigan, Sheriff’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.2d 1032 · 1969
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2024
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Relies on Katz v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Robinson v. State of California · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Winters v. People of State of New York
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he requirement of reasonable certainty in statutes affecting individuals does not preclude the use of ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393 , 52 S.Ct. 581 [586-87] 76 L.Ed. 1167 (1932). Moreover, when the subject lies within the police power of the States even debatable questions as to reasonableness are not for the Courts, but for the legislature, which is entitled to form its own judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alexander v. State“Every person who commits any of the following acts shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (f) who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or any drug, ... in such a condition that he is unable to exercise care for his own safety or the safety of others. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alexander v. State“He is not, however, being punished for being a chronic alcoholic; nor is he being punished for drinking. He is being punished for the performance of an act forbidden to one while in a state of extreme intoxication; that of appearing in a public place. Budd v. Madigan, 418 F.2d, at 1034 .”
1 later decision 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.