Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 706 F.2d 985 - Doe v. Staples

Doe v. Staples’s Empirical Analysis

706 F.2d 985 · 1983

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Kallstrom v. City of Columbus (1998), San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Rusell S. (1990)

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

9019831990200020102020decided

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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Santosky v. Kramer · Goldberg v. Kelly · Stanley v. Illinois

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

  1. “[T]o constitute a deprivation of due process, [the civil statute] must be “so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all.” A.B. Small Co., 267 U.S. [233], 239, 45 S.Ct. 295 , 69 L.Ed. 589 (1925). To paraphrase, uncertainty in this statute is not enough for it to be unconstitutionally vague; rather, it must be substantially incomprehensible. 644 F.2d at 1033 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]o constitute a deprivation of due process, the civil statute must be so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all. To paraphrase, uncertainty in [a] statute is not enough for it to be unconstitutionally vague; rather, it must be substantially incomprehensible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hen a statute is not concerned with criminal conduct or first amendment considerations, the court must be fairly lenient in evaluating a claim of vagueness.”
    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.