State v. Dale’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2007
11 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Solem v. Helm · Kolender v. Lawson · Washington v. Texas
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A crime must be statutorily defined with definiteness and certainty. A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [people] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process. A criminal statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hoeft · State v. McGill“It is realized that criminal laws represent a legislative balancing act in many instances. In an attempt to prohibit certain conduct, the laws are usually written in a fashion to give broad application to the type of conduct sought to be forbidden. There is nothing inherently wrong with a broad application; for otherwise, there would exist a criminal law for each specific act. What is not allowed are laws so general in nature that people of ordinary intelligence may apply them differently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hoeft · State v. McGill“Any person who obtains property of another by deception is guilty of theft. A person deceives if with intent to defraud he: (1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; (2) Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction[.] . . . . The term "deceive" does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing by statements unlikely to deceive reasonable persons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hurst
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.