Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 Cal. 3d 331 - Diamond v. Bland

11 Cal. 3d 331 - Diamond v. Bland’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980), 23 Cal. 3d 899 - Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979)

77 state decisions

27019741980199020002010decided

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 Marsh v. State of Alabama · Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner · Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. · 67 Cal. 2d 845 - In Re Hoffman · 3 Cal. 3d 653 - Diamond v. Bland

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

  1. “The Court distinguished Logan on the basis that, unlike the situation in that case, the handbilling had no relation to any purpose for which the shopping center was being used, [fn. 3] and that respondents had adequate alternative avenues to disseminate their views by distributing the material on the public streets and sidewalks, including those surrounding the shopping center.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “labor unions had a labor dispute with, and were picketing, businesses located within the shopping centers ... a factor which led us to strike the balance between private property rights and First Amendment activities in favor of the latter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[u]nder these circumstances, we must conclude that defendants' private property interests outweigh plaintiffs' own interests in exercising First Amendment rights in the manner sought herein.”
    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.