Speer v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
15 F.3d 1007 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2022
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Edenfield v. Fane · Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn. · Crestar Bank v. Neal (In re Kitchin Equipment Co. of Virginia, Inc.) · Remy Martin Co Sa v. Shaw-Ross International Imports Inc F
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A first amendment challenge is appropriate where a state prohibits the use of public records by one who wishes to engage in non-misleading, truthful commercial speech. Advertisements by lawyers fall within this protected category. Statutes that restrict commercial speech must directly advance a substantial government interest and the state bears the burden of justifying its restrictions. A mere reading of this statute indicates that it probably impinges upon Speer’s commercial speech.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unlawful for any person to inspect or copy any records of a law enforcement agency to which the public . has a right of access ... for the purpose of obtaining the. names and addresses of the victims of crimes or persons charged with crimes ... for any commercial solicitation of such individuals or relatives of such individuals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We note that any privacy arguments the state asserts are disingenuous in light of the fact that the statute carves out an exception for the media to place any information they obtain on the front page of any newspaper in Georgia.”), Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. at 476 , 108 S.Ct. at 1923 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Babkes v. Satz
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.