Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Indrisano (1994), State v. Schriver (1988)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania · Frank v. Maryland
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]here the conduct to be prohibited by a criminal statute is capable of objective definition by language descriptive of precise physical acts and events, it simply will not do to use language so ambiguous as to be capable of expansion or contraction at the whim of the reader.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McKay v. State · Anderson v. State“[I]f the statute under which appellant was indicted is unconstitutional, it follows that the indictment and judgment of conviction would be vitiated and we should reverse under the plain error rule. (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 640 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tarnef v. State · Johnson v. State“The essential elements which the State must prove to warrant a conviction of the defendant of the crime of Failure to Return a Rental Vehicle, as charged in Count I of the Indictment, are: 1.That the defendant Robert E. Spiedel [sicl was in possession of a 1968 Falcon under an agreement in writing which required him to return that vehicle to Avis Rent a Car on January 18, 1968; 2. That the defendant wilfully neglected to return that vehicle to Avis Rent a Car on January 18, 1968; 3. That the omission, failure or forbearance of defendant to return said vehicle was with a conscious purpose to injure Avis Rent a Car, or without regard for the rights of Avis Rent a Car or with an indifference whether or not a wrong was done to Avis Rent a Car. If you find from the evidence that the State has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of these essential elements then you should find the defendant guilty as charged in Count I of the Indictment; but if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether all of these essential elements have been proved, then you should find the defendant not guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Speidel v. State
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.