State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State Ex Rel. Webster v. Lehndorff Geneva, Inc. (1988), State v. Mahurin (1990)
37 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Citations omitted.] The second is that the vagueness doctrine assures that guidance, through explicit standards, will be afforded to those who must apply the statute, avoiding possible arbitrary and discriminatory application. The”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“An exception exists where the accused has challenged the facial validity of the ordinance or statute on First Amendment grounds, in which case it is irrelevant that his particular conduct which subjected him to arrest, could constitutionally be prohibited under the statute. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611-12 , 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915-2916 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); City of Kansas City v. Thorpe, 499 S.W.2d 454 (Mo.1973), cert. denied, Thorpe v. City of Kansas City, 416 U.S. 990 , 94 S.Ct. 2398 , 40 L.Ed.2d 768 (1974); State v. Swoboda, 658 S.W.2d 24 (Mo. banc 1983). Overbreadth attacks are allowed where rights of association are ensnared in statutes which, by their broad sweep, might result in burdening innocent associations. Broa drick, 413 U.S. at 611-612 , 93 S.Ct. at 2915-2916 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the offender ... be present at such a place for the purpose of being a spectator at a cockfight”). We acknowledge these authorities, but conclude they are distinguishable and/or inapplicable here because the Oklahoma Act contains express language of a culpable mental state of "knowing”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edmondson v. Pearce
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.