State v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Long v. State (1996), Galloway v. State (2001)
33 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 Santobello v. New York · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Screws v. United States
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The government has a strong and legitimate interest in preventing the harassment of individuals.... ‘Prohibiting harassment is not prohibiting speech, because harassment is not a protected speech. Harassment is not communication, although it may take the form of speech. The statute prohibits only telephone calls made with the intent to harass. Phone calls made with the intent to communicate are not prohibited. Harassment in this case, thus is not protected merely because it is accomplished using a telephone.’ 36”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Galloway v. State“(1) Every person who, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend, telephones another and (a) addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd or profane language, or makes any request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent; or (b) addresses to such other person any threat to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his family, or any other person, ... is guilty of a misdemeanor ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adams“[p]ossible infirmity for vagueness may be avoided if the statute is given a limiting judicial construction, consistent with the apparent legislative intent and comporting with constitutional limitations. United, States Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 , 93 S.Ct. 2880 , 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973); United States v. Nat’l Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32 , 83 S.Ct. 594, 597-98 , 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cobb
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.