94 Ark. App. 337 - Osborne v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
October 2008
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Batchelder · Atkinson v. State · Moore v. State · Simpson v. State · Bowker v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the burden of proving otherwise is on the challenger of the statute. If it is possible to construe a statute as constitutional, we must do so. Because statutes are presumed to be framed in accordance with the Constitution, they should not be held invalid for repugnance thereto unless such conflict is clear and unmistakable. We have said that a law is unconstitutionally vague under due process standards if it does not give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, and it is so vague and standardless that it allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. As a general rule, the constitutionality of a statutory provision being attacked as void for vagueness is determined by the statute’s applicability to the facts at issue. When challenging the constitutionality of a statute on grounds of vagueness, the individual challenging the statute must be one of the “entrapped innocent,” who has not received fair warning; if, by his action, that individual clearly falls within the conduct proscribed by the statute, he cannot be heard to complain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is axiomatic that a general statute does not apply and must yield where there is a specific statute addressing a particular subject matter. Osborne v. State, 94 Ark.App. 337 , 230 S.W.3d 290 (2006). Under section 27-14-704, as Hinojosa notes, all that was required was that his plate”
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.