19 Cal. 3d 359 - Jacoby v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 637 - In Re Marriage of Flaherty (1982), 27 Cal. 4th 939 - Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2003)
35 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
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Stanley v. Georgia · Speiser v. Randall
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The advertisement ... did more than simply propose a commercial transaction. It contained factual material of clear `public interest.' Portions of its message ... involve the exercise of the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion. [¶] Viewed in its entirety, the advertisement conveyed information of potential interest and value to a diverse audience not only to readers possibly in need of the services offered, but also to those with a general curiosity about, or genuine interest in, the subject matter or the law of another State and its development, and to readers seeking reform in Virginia.... Thus, in this case, appellant's First Amendment interests coincided with the constitutional interests of the general public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[W]e synthesize Belli and Bigelow [v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 , 95 S.Ct. 2222 , 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975),] by concluding that a communication is not `primarily directed' toward solicitation unless, viewed in its entirety, it serves no discernible purpose other than the attraction of clients. If a legitimate purpose appears on the face of a publication or in the demonstrated motivation of the attorney, the publication must receive at least prima facie First Amendment protection."”
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.