Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 773 NW2D 834 - Formaro v. Polk County

Formaro v. Polk County’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2022

14 state decisions

140200920102020decided

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 Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Smith v. Doe · United States v. Guest · Aptheker v. Secretary of State · El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie

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

  1. “There are three generally cited underpinnings of the void-for-vagueness doctrine. First, a statute cannot be so vague that it does not give persons of ordinary understanding fair notice that certain conduct is prohibited. Second, due process requires that statutes provide those clothed with authority sufficient guidance to prevent the exercise of power in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion. Third, a statute cannot sweep so broadly as to prohibit substantial amounts of constitutionally-protected activities, such as speech protected under the First Amendment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits vague statutes. A statute can be impermissibly vague for either of two independent reasons. First, if it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits. Second, if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.