State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

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

1. ““On the other hand, the Model Penal Code, by requiring that the material, to be obscene, must appeal to ‘prurient interest’ and go ‘substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation’ emphasizes strongly that the manner of presentation must itself amount to shameful and disgusting conduct outside the pale of what is tolerable to the community at large. The majority opinion in the Roth case defines ‘prurient’ as ‘having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts.’ 354 U. S. 476 , at page 486, note 20, 77 S. Ct. at page 1310 . We think, however, that the court had in mind the narrower meaning used by the Model Penal Code or means to use the narrower meaning in cases following Roth.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monfred v. State

2. ““We reject the prevailing test of tendency to arouse lustful thoughts or desires because it is unrealistically broad for a society that plainly tolerates a great deal of erotic interest in literature, advertising, and art, and because regulation of thought or desire, unconnected with overt misbehaviour, faises the most acute constitutional as well as practical difficulties. We likewise reject the common' definition of obscene as that which ‘tends to corrupt or debase.’ If this means anything different from tendency to arouse lustful thought and desire, it suggests that change of character or actual misbehaviour follows from contact with obscenity. Evidence of such consequences is lacking * * 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monfred v. State

3. ““Although material alleged to be obscene must generally be judged on the basis of its appeal to the average member of the community, we think it may be judged by its appeal to a special audience — for example, children — if it clearly is aimed at such an audience. [Citation omitted.] In such a case, the federal constitution would probably require a strong showing that the material is in fact directed solely or chiefly at a special group. Butler v. State of Michigan * * , 352 U.S. 380 , 77 S.Ct. 524 , 1 L.Ed.2d 412 .” State v. Jackson, supra, 356 P.2d at 507 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hanby v. State