State v. Roy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he specific intent requirement in [§2602] alleviates any problem with vagueness.”
• a reasonable person would comprehend the proscribed conduct
• noting “lewd” may be too vague in certain circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• State v. Roy
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1989-01-13· cited 85×
• State v. Brooks
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1995-01-27· cited 45×
• State v. Carter
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1996-01-12· cited 44×
• Benning v. State
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1994-01-28· cited 37×
• State v. Cantrell
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1989-02-10· cited 34×
• Hosford v. State
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1990-03-21· cited 32×
• State v. Settle
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-03-16· cited 32×
• State v. Messier
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1985-07-19· cited 31×
• State v. Shaw
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1987-12-11· cited 29×
• State v. Shattuck
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-08-20· cited 29×
• In re P.M.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1991-03-29· cited 26×
• State v. Dorn
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1985-05-03· cited 23×
• State v. Squiers
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2006-03-24· cited 22×
• State v. Miller
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1985-07-19· cited 21×
• State v. Verrinder
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1993-12-27· cited 15×
• United States v. Jones
  United States Court of Military Appeals· 1988-06-20· cited 15×
• State v. Zinck
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1983-03-02· cited 14×
• State v. Lupien
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1983-09-06· cited 14×
• State v. Robinson
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1992-04-03· cited 14×
• State v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1983-09-06· cited 13×