Rice v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indirectly, in aid of any sectarian institution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 886 So. 2d 340 - Bush v. Holmes · 887 So. 2d 1023 - Warner v. City of Boca Raton

2. “[A] statute like paragraph 893.13(1)(e) which does not purport to regulate constitutionally protected conduct can be struck down as being unconstitutionally vague only if the statutory language is so vague that it fails to give adequate notice of any conduct that the statute proscribes. Thus, when addressing the instant vagueness claim, the first question is whether the defendants engaged in conduct that is clearly proscribed by the statute. If so, the defendants cannot prevail on their claim of vagueness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 761 So. 2d 1234 - Hobby v. State

3. “A challenge to a statute on grounds of vagueness turns initially to the nature of the behavior the statute seeks to regulate. . . . [I]f the statute purports to regulate constitutionally protected conduct, such as speech or assembly, the statute must be examined in the abstract in order to analyze a vagueness claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE OF FLORIDA v. WILLIAM CRUMBLEY