In Re Newbern’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 306 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 319 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 2 Cal. 3d 619 - Keeler v. Superior Court (1970), 1 Cal. 4th 495 - People v. Kelly (1992)
11 federal appellate · 306 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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · 51 Cal. 2d 777 - People v. Mattson · 49 Cal. 2d 409 - People v. McCaughan
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 319 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“or from any demonstrably established technical or common law meaning of the language in question”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * The first aspect of the difficulty is that citizens are not sufficiently warned by vague language as to what course of conduct is denounced. Secondly, the court is given insufficient standards by which to judge the defendant’s conduct. Consequently, each judge and jury is free to define the crime in any manner that it sees fit, giving rise to the dangers of imposing ex post facto punishment on the defendant, having the jury find the law as well as the facts and giving the statute the effect of a bill of attainder in each particular case. * * ⅜ * ⅝ ⅜ “Finally, we might point out that the Constitution of the State of California commands that all general laws be of uniform operation. Const., Art. I, § 11. That provision will not tolerate a criminal law so lacking in definition that each defendant is left to the vagaries of individual judges and juries. * * *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Day v. Armstrong
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.