Larson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2013
22 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2071
Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Thornhill v. Alabama · United States v. Harriss · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] statute which may be criticized because it fails to give adequate notice of every type of conduct which is prohibited may still be sustained (1) if the offense charged falls squarely within its prohibitions and (2) if a construction may be placed upon the statute so that its reach may be reasonably understood in the future.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1974), we set forth the relevant considerations in determining whether a statute is void for vagueness. The first is whether it is so broad that it may restrict the exercise of first amendment rights. The criminal acts with which Larson was charged do not involve the exercise of these rights, so this consideration is not pertinent. Cf. State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1975) (disorderly conduct statute). The second consideration is whether the statute gives adequate notice of the conduct that is prohibited. The third consideration is whether the statute is drawn so imprecisely that it creates a danger of arbitrary enforcement. Stock v. State, supra at 8; State v. Martin, supra at 324 (concurring opinion); see, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). (footnotes omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jernigan v. State“[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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Summers v. Anchorage
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.