153 Misc. 2d 382 - People v. Stephen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hile the original Chaplinsky formulation of 'fighting words' may have given some impression of establishing a category of words which could be proscribed regardless of the context in which they were used, developing [f]irst [a]mendment doctrine in the half century since Chaplinsky was decided has continually resorted to analyzing provocative expression contextually”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Baccala

2. “we have not permitted the government to assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but have instead required careful consideration of the actual circumstances surrounding such expression, asking whether the expression is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Baccala

3. “a civilian from whom [the remarks] might conceivably have evoked a retaliatory response”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Baccala