Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 F.2d 747 - Knutson v. Brewer

Knutson v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis

619 F.2d 747 · 1980

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
5
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Winot (2010), United States v. Castro (1988)

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

2001980199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Marks v. United States · United States v. Harriss · Bouie v. City of Columbia · United States v. National Dairy Products Corp.

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

  1. “* * * His position, reduced to its simplest terms, is that he would be convicted for kidnapping only, rather than for kidnapping for ransom. This kind of reliance interest is not, in our view, entitled to a great deal of weight. When a person does an act that he well knows to be a violation of some law, and when a statute is later interpreted to cover his conduct in a way that does not do violence to the ordinary understanding of the English language, the Fourteenth Amendment is not offended.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is settled that the fair-warning requirement embodied in the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from holding an individual ‘criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.’ ... But this prohibition against excessive vagueness does not invalidate every statute which a reviewing court believes could have been drafted with greater precision. Many statutes will have some inherent vagueness, for ‘[i]n most English words and phrases there lurk uncertainties,’ .... Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or for-bid_ All the Due Process Clause requires is that the law give sufficient warning that men may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is forbidden.”
    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.