Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 CAL 558 - In re Flaherty

In re Flaherty’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
August 1977
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1977 · most notably Gorieb v. Fox (1927), 28 Cal. 2d 91 - In Re Porterfield (1946)

44 state decisions

120189519001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Barbier v. Connolly · Crowley v. Christensen · Mayor of Baltimore v. Radecke · Sawyer v. Davis

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

  1. ““Put the point urged by petitioner is that the ordinance is void because it gives a certain officer authority to give permits to beat drums on special occasions, and this position is the only one which needs examination. Jt is coni ended that the clause authorizing a permit is partial and oppressive because it gives too much power to the president of the board," and is violative of general constitutional principles against abridging the, privileges of citizens, depriving a person of his rigid s without due process of iaw, denying him the equal protection of the law, etc. “The continuous or daily beating of drums on the streets of a city would be an intolerable nuisance, endangering ihe safety of teams and the occupants of vehicles drawn by animals, an well as of pedestrians liable to be injured by runaways, and stunning the ears with din so constant as to be almost insufferable. On the other hand, there is usually no objection 1o such noises on a few special occasions, either when there are patriotic celebrations generally participated in by all the people, or processions of a part of the people united in civic societies, political parties, etc. Those occasions are comparatively few and usually well known, so that people; are prepared for them; and the procossious and drums are generally preceded by policemen who give notice of the approaching uproar. But how can these occasions bo provided for? By an ordinance which shall anticipate and state in detail beforehand every occas”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In the ordinance involved in the case at bar there is no attempt to suppress processions or parades”
    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.