Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Beausoleil (1986), United States v. Yee (1991)
33 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 Kolender v. Lawson · United States v. Mazurie · United States v. Powell · Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Fuentes v. Shevin
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the charge of endangerment `and/or' abandonment ... effectively charged [the defendants] with both acts; the use of `or' was superfluous”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Kerlin contends the statute is vague because it may be applied to proscribe alleged negligent medical care.... A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if persons of ordinary intelligence would comprehend it to adequately inform them of the proscribed conduct. (Citation omitted) An itemized list presenting each item of prohibited conduct in the statute is unnecessary.... No reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would have difficulty determining that failure to give necessary or proper medical care is proscribed by the statute. Therefore, we do not find the neglect statute is vague. Kerlin also contends the statute is over-broad as applied to him.... Kerlin presents arguments that application of the statute to health and medical care professionals would result in reluctance by the medical profession to provide care to nursing home residents. Such arguments are better addressed to the legislature and do not constitute sufficient argument to overcome the presumption that the statute is constitutional. Kerlin fails to establish that the statute ‘forbids conduct in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at the statute’s meaning and differ as to its application’ or that the statute is overbroad.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Springer“[a] person having the care, custody, or control of a dependent who knowingly or intentionally: (1) places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health; (2) abandons or cruelly confines the dependent; (3) deprives the dependent of necessary support; or (4) deprives the dependent of education as required by law; commits neglect of a dependent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Vest 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.