Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 523 NE2D 229 - Van Sant v. State

Van Sant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2013

16 state decisions

1301988199020002010decided

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 Hamling v. United States · Miller v. California · Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. · Walter v. United States · Pope v. Illinois

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

  1. “establishes 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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An overbreadth challenge asserts that the statute is not drawn in sufficiently narrow terms and foreseeably prohibits legitimate conduct.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"A person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) sends or brings into Indiana obscene matter for sale or distribution; or (2) offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to another person obscene matter; commits a 'Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the obscene matter depicts or describes sexual conduct involving any person who is or appears to be under sixteen (16) years of age."”
    1 later decision 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.