Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.2d 788 - Roth v. Goldman

Roth v. Goldman’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.2d 788 · 1949

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 1980
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1980 · most notably Roth v. United States (1957), Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)

14 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

21019491950196019701980decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 334

Relies on Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Thornhill v. Alabama · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Schneider v. State

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

  1. ““I think that no sane man thinks socially dangerous the arousing of normal sexual desires. Consequently, if reading obscene books has merely that consequence, Congress, it would seem, can constitutionally no more suppress such books than it can prevent the mailing of many other objects, such as perfumes, for example, which notoriously produce that result. But the constitutional power to suppress obscene publications might well exist if there were ample reason to believe that reading them conduces to socially harmful sexual conduct on the part of normal human beings.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “American public opinion on the subject of obscenity.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.