Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 NW2D 809 - State v. Waterman

State v. Waterman’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

8019711980199020002010decided

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. § 700 (Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000)

Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Morissette v. United States · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Street v. New York

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

  1. “As noted above, the flag desecration statute makes it a misdemeanor: (1) to place any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature, upon any flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or upon any flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state; (2) to expose to public view, any such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or any such flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed, any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; (3) to expose to public view, manufacture, sell, expose for sale, give away, or have in possession for sale, or to give away, or for use for any purpose any article or substance, being an article of merchandise or a receptacle of merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached or otherwise placed, a representation of any such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or any such flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state; (4) to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed; (5) for a person to publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, cast contempt upon,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The record discloses, nonetheless, that the government’s interest in protecting the sensibilities of witnesses to the act who might be shocked by it is very real. As Mrs. Martineau put it, “I was more or less crushed.” Alvina Fitzgerald, also a desk clerk at the hotel, testified: “It just made me sick.” It is only a short step from this feeling of revulsion to an act of retribution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Defendant next contends § 32.1 is unconstitutionally vague. We cannot agree. . . . [T]he statute under attack provides the requisite degree of certainty to provide men of ordinary intelligence with fair notice as to what conduct is proscribed.”
    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.