Gable v. Patton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Questions concerning the constitutionality of a statute are reviewed de novo. "); Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940 , 944 (6th Cir.1998) ("Because the four provisions are challenged with regard to facial constitutionality, thus implicating only issues of law, . . . our standard of review is de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jon B. Cutter J. Lee Hampton, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Reginald Wilkinson David Schwartz Nicholas G. Menedez L.C. Coval K.L. Brown George D. Alexander Dianne Walker Jim Erwin Ron Carnein Rudy Pringle Walter Lowery, John Miller, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Reginald Wilkinson David Schwartz Terry Collins Cheryl Hart Charles R. Griffin Charles Griffin, Chaplain, John W. Gerhardt, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Alan Lazaroff, Warden Kenneth Byers Don Wilson Mary Henderson Sherry Williamson Kristina Hackett Steven Weingart Ron Clifton Robert Englund Charles Conrad Stacha Doty Jack Taylor William Blaney Carol Martin June Coleman Dave Morris Vance York Susan Coolie Stephanie Walker Rachel Hettinger Kenneth E. McDonald · Cutter

2. “The critical difference between [spending limits] and those time, place, and manner cases is that the present [Canon’s] ... expenditure limitations impose direct quantity restrictions on political communication and association by groups, candidates, and political parties in addition to any reasonable time, place, and manner regulations otherwise imposed. A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on [judicial] communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression ... and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 121 F. Supp. 2d 1141 - Suster v. Marshall

3. “The candidate, no less than any other person, has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election and the election of other candidates. Indeed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their views known.... The primary governmental interest served by the Act, the prevention of actual and apparent corruption of the political process, does not support the limitation on the candidate’s expenditure of his own personal funds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 83 F. Supp. 2d 906 - Dann v. Blackwell