Thomas Loce v. Time Warner Entertainment’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2016
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 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Miller v. California · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Flagg Brothers Inc v. Brooks J Lefkowitz · Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
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.
“a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“on the subscriber's cable line. Programs containing nudity and sexually explicit content, when provided by Time Warner or its affiliates, are not shown on standard-tier channels but are confined to the optional premium or pay-per-view channels. The present case involves the contents of programs provided by independent programmers on leased access channels, which, as part of standard-tier programming, are transmitted to all subscribers and are not scrambled. 4 Loce and Richter are independent producers of cable television programming doing business as Life Without Shame (collectively”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“could not properly be rejected because it included no sexual or excretory depictions or descriptions. They also contend that Time Warner's refusal to identify for LWS the objectionable portions of the submitted programs, to facilitate editing and resubmission, was unreasonable. We disagree. 1. Reasonableness of Rejection 61 As detailed in Part II.A. above, by 1997, when plaintiffs submitted the episodes in question to Time Warner, the Cable Act allowed a cable operator to refuse to transmit on a leased access channel any program that”
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.