Ely v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

147 state decisions

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

1. “A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hernandez v. State · DeWillis v. State

2. “Appellant concedes that the purpose of this statute is to protect consumers from unethical business practices. It is clear that the statute speaks in terms of the evil to be cured, i.e., to prevent “materially false or misleading statements” from being used in connection with the purchase or sale of property or services. As was stated in Boyce Motor Lines Inc. v. U.S., 342 U.S. 337, 340 [ 72 S.Ct. 329, 331 , 96 L.Ed. 367 ] (1952), “most statutes must deal with untold and unforeseen variations in factual situations.” To require elaborate specificity as to what constitutes “materially false or misleading statements” would undermine the efficacy of the statute. The ingenuity of humans would quickly learn ways to circumvent the specific proscriptions. The requirement of reasonable certainty does not preclude the use of ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 , 52 S.Ct. 581 , 76 L.Ed. 1167 (1932). The failure to specifically elaborate each “materially false or misleading statement” which, when made in connection with the purchase or sale of property or service, constitutes an offense does not render this statute void for vagueness and indefiniteness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Huett v. State

3. “"Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Tarrant County, Texas, on or about the 31st day of May, 1977, the defendant did then and there while in the course of committing theft and with intent to obtain or maintain control of property of Billy Fred Lanford, to-wit, one firearm, without the effective consent of the said Billy Fred Lanford, and with the intent to deprive the said Billy Fred Lanford of said property, did then and there cause serious bodily injury to Billy Fred Lanford by striking him on the head with a wrench then you will find the defendant guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. "Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will find the defendant not guilty."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Porter v. State