Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 N.C. App. 88 - State v. Worthington

89 N.C. App. 88 - State v. Worthington’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2009

10 state decisions

60198819902000decided

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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Smith v. Goguen · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

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

  1. “Principles of “due process” require courts to declare a criminal statute unconstitutionally vague if the statute fails to clearly define what is prohibited. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 222 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 (1972); State v. Evans, 73 N.C. App. 214 , 326 S.E. 2d 303 (1985). A statute is “void for vagueness” if it forbids or requires doing an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Coates v. Cincinatti, 402 U.S. 611 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 214 , 91 S.Ct. 1686 (1971); In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 , 169 S.E. 2d 879 (1969), affirmed 403 U.S. 528 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 647 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971). Only a reasonable degree of certainty is necessary, mathematical precision is not required. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra; State v. Martin, 7 N.C. App. 532 , 173 S.E. 2d 47 (1970).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing limits shall not relieve the operator of a vehicle from the duty to decrease speed as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway, and to avoid injury to any person or property.”
    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.