Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 CMA 564 - United States v. Priest

United States v. Priest’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
August 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2016

1 federal appellate ·

5019721980199020002010decided

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 10 U.S.C. § 934

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

  1. “In the armed forces some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, [ 395 U.S. 444 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969)]. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he danger resulting from an erosion of military morale and discipline is too great to require that discipline must have already been impaired before a prosecution for uttering statements can be sustained. * * * * * * The hazardous aspect of license in this area is that the damage done may not be recognized until the battle has begun. At that point, it may be uncorrectable or irreversible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.”
    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.