Murphy v. Matheson’s Empirical Analysis
742 F.2d 564 · 1984
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Dias v. City & County of Denver (2009), Ward v. Utah S (2005)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 26 U.S.C. § 5686 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Fuentes v. Shevin · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not apprise persons of ordinary intelligence what conduct falls within the statute's proscriptions; (2) the statute fails to provide adequate and explicit enforcement guidelines; and (3) the statute infringes on activity protected by the first amendment. 15 In determining whether an ordinance is unconstitutionally vague,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. D.C. And M.S. v. The City of St. Louis, Missouri Homer E. Sayad Charles W. Valier Thomas Purcell Robert F. Wintersmith Vincent C. Schoemehl, Jr. Jerome Williams John J. Frank James Mosbacher Robert J. Baer Jordan Lewis Ronald Klier Roy Joachimstaler Antoinette Filla Fred Husman Michael Vierling, Individually and in Their Official Capacities · Dc Ms v. City of St Louis Missouri“bears a reasonable relation to the state's legitimate purpose....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Criminal statutes must be more precise than civil statutes because the consequences of vagueness are more severe. Further, a scienter requirement may mitigate a criminal law’s vagueness by ensuring that it punishes only those who are aware their conduct is unlawful. Also, regulatory statutes governing business activities may be less precise because the conduct proscribed is usually in a narrow category and the regulated enterprise may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by inquiring of an administrative agency or resort to an administrative process. Finally, the Constitution demands more clarity of laws which threaten to inhibit constitutionally protected conduct, especially conduct protected by the First Amendment.”
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.