Jimmy Gresham v. Bart Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.3d 899 · 2000
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Las Vegas (2006), Weinberg v. City of Chicago (2002)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Kolender v. Lawson · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Panhandling after sunset and before sunrise. (2) Panhandling when the individual being solicited is: (A) at a bus stop; (B) in a: (i) vehicle; or (ii) facility; used for transportation; (C) in a motor vehicle that is parked or stopped on a public street or alley, unless the person soliciting the individual has the approval to do so by a unit of local government that has jurisdiction over the street or alley; (D) in the sidewalk dining area of a restaurant; or (E) within twenty (20) feet of: (i) an automated teller machine; or (ii) the entrance to a bank. (3) Panhandling while touching the individual being solicited without the solicited individual’s consent. (4) Panhandling while the individual being solicited is standing in line and waiting to be admitted to a commercial establishment. (5) Panhandling while blocking: (A) the path of the individual being solicited; or the entrance to a building or motor vehicle. (6) Panhandling while using profane or abusive language: (A) during a solicitation; or (B) after the individual being solicited has declined to donate money or something else of value. (7) Panhandling while making a statement, a gesture, or another communication to the individual being solicited that would cause a reasonable individual to: (A) fear for the individual’s safety; or (B) feel compelled to donate. (8) Panhandling with at least one (1) other individual. (9) Panhandling and then following or accompanying the solicited individual without the solicited ind”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alvies v. State“(a) [ ] soliciting] an individual: (1) on a street or in another public place; and (2) by requesting an immediate donation of money or something else of value. (b) The terms includes soliciting an individual: (1) by making an oral request; (2) in exchange for: (A) performing music; (B) singing; or (C) engaging in another type of performance; or (3) by offering the individual an item of little or no monetary value in ex change for money or another gratuity under circumstances that would cause a reasonable individual to understand that the transaction is only a donation. (c) The term does not include an act of passively standing, sitting, performing music, singing or engaging in another type of performance: (1) while displaying a sign or other indication that a donation is being sought; and (2) without making an oral request other than in response to an inquiry by another person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alvies v. State“Numerous cases hold that governments may proscribe threats, extortion, blackmail and the like, 'despite the fact that they criminalize utterances because of their expressive content.' ” Gresham v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 899, 909 (7th Cir.2000) (citing cases). If, for example, the content of the handbill amounted to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.