Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 902 F.2d 611 - Server v. Mizell

Server v. Mizell’s Empirical Analysis

902 F.2d 611 · 1990

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2016

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

190199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Kolender v. Lawson · Carnegie v. United States · Marks 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.

  1. “[T]he void-for-vagueness doctrine requires only that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not so imprecise that [it] fail[s] to give sufficient notice of proscribed acts [nor will it] ... lead to discriminatory or arbitrary application by prosecutors, trial courts or juries.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “scienter requirement may mitigate the vagueness of a law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.