Kramer v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
712 F.2d 174 · 1983
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Long v. State (1996), Galloway v. State (2001)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 32 · 18 U.S.C. § 35 · 18 U.S.C. § 792 · 47 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Kolender v. Lawson · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally: (1) communicates by telephone or in writing in vulgar, profane, obscene language or in a coarse and offensive manner and by this action and by this action intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly annoys or alarms the recipient; (2) threatens, by telephone or in writing, to take unlawful action against any person and by this action intentionally and knowingly, or recklessly annoys or alarms the recipient or intends to annoy or alarm the recipient; or (3)places one or more telephone calls anonymously, at an unreasonable hour, in an offensive and repetitious manner, or without a legitimate purpose of communication and by this action intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly annoys or alarms the recipient.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Texas courts have made no attempt to construe the terms 'annoy' and 'alarm' in a manner which lessens their inherent vagueness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An enactment is void for vagueness under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment if it fails to draw reasonably clear lines between lawful and unlawful conduct. Vague statutes fail to provide citizens with fair notice or warning of statutory prohibitions so that they may act in a lawful manner. The infirmities of vagueness, however, extend beyond the lack of fair notice. The absence of a determinate standard gives police officers, prosecutors, and the triers of fact unfettered discretion to apply the law, and thus there is a danger of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
2 later decisions 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.