Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 SO2D 816 - State v. Gray

State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 96 So. 3d 412 - State v. Adkins (2012), 995 So. 2d 351 - Deparvine v. State (2008)

84 state decisions

2501983199020002010decided

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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Thornhill v. Alabama · Moore v. City of East Cleveland

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

  1. “[A] conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937). If the charging instrument completely fails to charge a crime, therefore, a conviction thereon violates due process. Where an indictment or information wholly omits to allege one or more of the essential elements of the crime, it fails to charge a crime under the laws of the state. Since a conviction cannot rest upon such an indictment or information, the complete failure of an accusatory instrument to charge a crime is a defect that can be raised at any time—before trial, after trial, on appeal, or by habeas corpus.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is within the power of the legislature to declare conduct criminal without requiring specific criminal intent to achieve a certain result; that is, the legislature may punish conduct without regard to the mental attitude of the offender, so that the general intent of the accused to do the act is deemed to give rise to a presumption of intent to achieve the criminal result....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “achieves its governmental purpose to control or prevent activities properly subject to regulation by means that sweep too broadly into an area of constitutionally protected freedom.”
    2 later decisions 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.