Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 49 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is not void for vagueness if individuals of ordinary intelligence could comprehend it to the extent that it would fairly inform them of the generally proscribed conduct.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gary W. Yoakum v. State of Indiana · Jeffrey Fairbanks v. State of Indiana

2. “Ordinary people commonly understand "fraud” to mean "trickery,” "deception,” or "deceit.” Thus understood, the offense of criminal confinement, a class D felony, would be committed whenever a person knowingly or intentionally causes another person to change location by means of trickery, deception, or deceit. The scope of such proscription would embrace a vast assortment of very acceptable and even salutary conduct that is clearly not criminal in nature, e.g., using misleading reasons to secure a person's attendance for their surprise birthday celebration; evoking Santa Claus's watchful eye to induce a child to go to bed; employing flattery or exaggeration to motivate another person to attend an event; asserting an untruth to persuade an Alzheimer's patient to enter the location of a caregiver. Criminal confinement for removal by enticement can likewise be applied to criminalize an assortment of legitimate, normal everyday behavior. The word "enticement” is commonly understood to mean the act of attracting, luring, or tempting another by arousing hope or desire. The offense of criminal confinement, a class D felony, would thus occur whenever a person knowingly or intentionally arouses hope or desire in another person to lure or attract the other to change location. Literally, this proscription would include a broad array of quite acceptable human behavior, e.g., in-traspousal and parent-child communications to induce a change in location; commercial advertising to entice trav”

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

3. “We may give narrow construction to statutes to save them from nullification if the construction does not establish a new or different policy basis and is consistent with legislative intent.”

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