Love v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) assume that the defendant had constructive notice of both the statute in question and the case law interpreting that statute, United, States v. Harris, 805 F.Supp. 166, 178 (S.D.N.Y.1992); and (b) consider whether the statute “defines 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.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kittery Motorcycle, Inc. v. Rowe · United States v. Sawyer

2. “Love v. Butler , 952 F.2d 10 , 13 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. , 455 U.S. 489 , 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ); Draper v. Healey , 827 F.3d 1 , 3 (1st Cir. 2016) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Worma v. Healey

3. “where an enactment is alleged to be 'impermissibly vague in all of its applications,' ... it is clear that such an allegation must first be considered in light of the facts of the case-i.e., on an as-applied basis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Worma v. Healey