O'CALLAGHAN v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “The doctrine of vagueness ... originates in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 , 59 S.Ct. 618 , 83 L.Ed. 888 (1939), and is the basis for striking down legislation which contains insufficient warning of what conduct is unlawful, see United States v. National Dairy Products Corporation, 372 U.S. 29 , 83 S.Ct. 594 , 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963). “ ‘ “Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed. United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 74 S.Ct. 808, 811 , 98 L.Ed. 989, 996 (1954). A vague statute does not give adequate ‘notice of the required conduct to one who would avoid its penalties,’ Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 340 , 72 S.Ct. 329, 330 , 96 L.Ed. 367, 371 (195[2]), is not ‘sufficiently focused to forewarn of both its reach and coverage,’ United States v. National Dairy Products Corporation, 372 U.S. at 33 , 83 S.Ct. at 598 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 566 , and ‘may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning,’ Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 , 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227-28 (1972). “ ‘ “As the United States Supreme Court observed in Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 , 68 S.Ct. 665 , 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948): “ ‘ “ ‘There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vaguenes”

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

2. ““In addition to any disposition and fine authorized by Sections 13A-12-202, 13A-12-203, 13A-12-204, 13A-12-211, 13A-12-212, 13A-12-213, 13A-12-215, and 13A-12-231, or any other statute indicating the dispositions that can be ordered for such a conviction or an adjudication of delinquency, every person convicted of, or adjudicated delinquent for, a violation of any offense defined in the sections set forth above, shall be assessed for each such offense an additional penalty fixed at $1,000 for first offenders and $2,000 for second and subsequent offenders.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 So. 3d 478 - Kevan Mathews v. State of Alabama.