State v. Minns’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 83 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Many decisions have recognized that these terms of obscenity statutes are not precise. This Court, however, has consistently held that lack of precision is not itself offensive to the requirements of due process. ‘* * * [T]he Constitution does not require impossible standards’; all that is required is that the language ‘conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. * * *’ United States v. Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1, 7-8 . These words, applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, already discussed, give adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and mark * * boundaries sufficiently distinct for judges and juries fairly to administer the law * * *. That there may be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense. * * *’ Id., at 7 [citations omitted].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Beaulieu

2. ““. . . Sexual assault consists of either: “A. any indecent handling or touching of any person under the age of sixteen [16] years or . . .” (N. M. S.A. 1953, § 40A-9-9).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Conley

3. “`* * * tending toward or being in fact something generally viewed as morally indelicate or improper or offensive; * * *'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Oden