Paulos v. Breier’s Empirical Analysis
507 F.2d 1383 · 1974
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Aiello v. City of Wilmington (1980), Webb v. City of Philadelphia (2009)
14 federal appellate · 3 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 Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Alderman v. United States · Dombrowski v. Pfister
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed. (footnote omitted) 14 "On the other hand, if the general class of offenses to which the statute is directed is plainly within its terms, the statute will not be struck down as vague even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise. (citations omitted) And if this general class of offenses can be made constitutionally definite by a reasonable construction of the statute, this Court is under a duty to give the statute that construction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sheehan v. Scott““Unlike the panel in Bence , we have here held that plaintiff had notice that his conduct in endorsing the County Supervisor’s candidacy of his attorney to the patrolmen was proscribed by Rule 29, Section 31, and that, therefore, the regulation is not vague as applied to his conduct. The two eases involve different regulations and different conduct. An examination of these cases demonstrates that the vagueness argument in Bence was much stronger than here and that, therefore, the cases are distinguishable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hanneman v. Breier“... Under the decision in Letter Carriers, there is no question that § 818 is valid at least insofar as it forbids classified employees from: ... becoming ... candidates for any paid political office; ...”
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.