Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 F.3d 164 - Phillips

Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably City of Erie v. Pap's A. M. (2000), Edwards v. City of Goldsboro (1999)

17 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 state decisions

2801997200020102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Daniels v. Williams · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · United States v. O'Brien

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

  1. “[i]f a legislative body can produce in court whatever justification is required of it under the applicable constitutional doctrine, we perceive little to be gained by incurring the expense, effort, and delay involved in requiring it to reenact the legislative measure after parading its evidence through its legislative chamber.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[O]ur First Amendment jurisprudence requires that the [municipality] identify the justifying secondary effects with some particularity, that [it] offer some record support for the existence of those effects and for the Ordinance's amelioration thereof, and that the plaintiffs be afforded some opportunity to offer evidence in support of the allegations of their complaint.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant or substantial government interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative channels for communication.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.