State v. Wilcox

How courts have described this case

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

• where meaning of statute is plain on its face, statute must be enforced according to its express terms
• where meaning of statute is plain on its face, statute must be enforced according to its express terms
• upholding telephone harassment statute in part because of specific-intent requirement
• upholding telephone harassment statute in part because of specific-intent requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Delisle
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1994-07-01· cited 102×
• State v. Read
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1996-03-22· cited 65×
• State v. Lilyblad
  Washington Supreme Court· 2008-02-07· cited 54×
• State v. DeRosa
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1993-10-08· cited 27×
• Lavalley v. E.B. & A.C. Whiting Co.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1997-01-17· cited 24×
• City of Redmond v. Burkhart
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-01-24· cited 16×
• Holmberg v. Brent
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1993-11-19· cited 15×
• People v. Jones
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-09-30· cited 14×
• State v. Forcier
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1994-05-20· cited 14×
• State v. Coburn
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2006-04-14· cited 11×
• State v. Lilyblad
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2006-08-08· cited 9×
• State v. Marshall
  Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 2002-03-22