134 Pa. Super. 192 - Pittsburgh v. Ruffner’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1983
2 federal appellate · 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 Lovell v. City of Griffin · Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Education Society · 108 Pa. Super. 94 - City of Scranton v. Noll · 132 Pa. Super. 507 - Commonwealth v. Gregory · Commonwealth v. Long
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I. The ordinance in question cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be held to be directed against freedom of worship. It is concerned with hawking and peddling merchandise, and with selling merchandise from house to house and in buildings. It does not discriminate against non-residents, nor is it limited to any particular kind of merchandise; ......This appellant is perfectly free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, separately or with his family and co-religionists, in his home or theirs, and in church, chapel, assembly or other gathering place...... The constitutional right of freedom of worship does not guarantee anybody the right to sell anything from house to house or in buildings, belonging to, or in the occupancy of, other persons. “II. Nor does the ordinance unlawfully infringe upon the constitutional right of freedom of the press. This appellant may, notwithstanding this ordinance, freely print and communicate his thoughts and opinions and may freely speak, write and print on any subject, ‘being responsible for the abuse of that liberty’, and he may, subject to reasonable regulation, freely distribute the same; but that furnishes no warrant for upholding his unlimited and unrestricted right to enter the homes and offices of others to sell to them the books and pamphlets he may have written or books and pamphlets expressive of his thoughts and opinions. The case of Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 , on which appellant relies, declares ”
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.