State v. Brobst’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2022
3 district · 14 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
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 223
Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · New York v. Ferber · Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H Munson Company Inc · Ashcroft Attorney General v. Free Speech Coalition · State v. Ball
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certainly the State has a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the effects of certain types of annoying or alarming telephone calls, such as the terror caused to an unsuspecting person when he or she answers the telephone, perhaps late at night, to hear nothing but a tirade of threats, curses, and obscenities, or, equally frightening, to hear only heavy breathing or groaning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the prohibition of all telephone calls placed with the intent to alarm encompasses too large an area of protected speech”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“First [A]mendment protection is not limited to amiable 13 communications.”
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.