State v. Fonseca’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Definitions. — As used in this chapter: (1) ‘Course of conduct’ means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of ‘course of conduct.’ (2) ‘Harasses’ means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and wdiich serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, or be in fear of bodily injury.””

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

2. ““The standard employed to gauge whether a particular statutory term reasonably informs an individual of the criminality of his conduct is whether the disputed verbiage provides adequate warning to a person of ordinary intelligence that his conduct is illegal by common understanding and practice.”. Id. at 1239 (quoting State v. Authelet, 120 R.I. 42, 45 , 385 A.2d 642, 644 (1978)).”

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

3. “We are satisfied that the ... statute, as drafted, did give adequate warning to potential offenders of the conduct that was prohibited. It indeed defies logic to conclude that a defendant would have to commit more than one series of harassing acts in order to be found guilty of stalking.”

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