People v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably State v. Gattis (1986), People v. Edwards (1979)
2 district · 54 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Miller v. California · Cohen v. California · Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... is reserved for those defendants whose speech is at the fringes of that activity which the statute is designed to regulate. Those defendants whose speech is central to the interests which the statute seeks to protect and is clearly of a type regulated by the statute in question, cannot attack the statute as overbroad. They must demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them. [ People v. Weeks, 197 Colo. 175 , 591 P. 2d 91, 94 (Sup.Ct. 1979); citations omitted]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Harassment. (1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he: .... (e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone which is obscene....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The extent to which a state may regulate such expression is "dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests [of others] are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner" ... [T]he privacy interest of a listener in the privacy of his home will be accorded greater protection, along with the commensurate restrictions on unwanted discourse, than would be permitted in a public forum.”
2 later decisions 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.