Lovelace v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1984
2 district · 20 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
Relies on State v. Prejean · Blake v. State · Feeley v. Ragen · Faber v. State of Arizona · Tonker v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sole question presented by this appeal is: ‘Did the trial court err in dismissing the writ of habeas corpus because the statute in question, A.R.S. Section 13-652, defining lewd and lascivious acts and fixing a penalty therefor, is violative of the due process clause of the State Constitution (article 2, section 4, A.R.S.), and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?’, the precise contention being that the statute is in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Petitioner cites no authority in support of his contention. A similar challenge was directed to this statute (then section 43-107, A.C.A. 1939) in the case of State of Arizona v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266 , 148 P.2d 1002 and its constitutionality was there upheld. Other jurisdictions have held likewise, (citations omitted). We see no occasion to again review the matter.” Lovelace v. Clark, 83 Ariz. 27, 28 , 315 P.2d 876 (1957).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * [T]he statute in question * * * does define the offense in terms so that men of common intelligence know its meaning and hence it is not violative of the due process clause of either the state or federal constitutions.” Lovelace v. Clark, supra, 83 Ariz. 28 , 315 P.2d 876 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.