State v. Bartanen’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Ripplinger v. Collins (1989), Polykoff v. Collins (1987)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
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 Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · United States v. Di Re · Stanford v. Texas · Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of Woman of Pleasure' v. Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The term appeal to the prurient interest means to excite lustful thoughts, a shameful or morbid interest in sex or nudity, arouse sexual desires or sexually impure thoughts, inclined to or disposed to lewdness, having lustful ideas or desires. * * * * * * “A prurient interest in sex is not the same as a candid, wholesome, or healthy interest in sex. Material does not appeal to the prurient interest just because it deals with sex or shows nude bodies. Prurient interest is an unhealthy, unwholesome, morbid, degrading, or shameful interest in sex, a leering or longing interest. An appeal to the prurient interest is an appeal to sexual desire, not an appeal to sexual interest. An interest in sex is normal, but if the material appeals to an abnormal interest in sex, it can appeal to the prurient interest.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) The average person, applying contemporary state standards would find that the item, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and (b) The item depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual activity as that term is described herein; and (c) The item taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . . (b) whether [applying those same contemporary community standards the average person would find that] the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
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.