Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
247 U.S. 402 · 1918
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 26 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 383 later decisions (61 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
132 federal appellate · 26 district · 86 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedToledo Newspaper Co. v. United States (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · Thomas Patterson v. People of the State of Colorado Ex Rel Attorney General of the State of Colorado · United States v. Hudson · Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.
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 383 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is to answer it, since it involves in its very statement the contention that the freedom of the press is the freedom to do wrong with impunity and implies the right to frustrate and defeat the discharge of those governmental duties upon the performance of which the freedom of all, including that of the press, depends.... It suffices to say that, however complete is the right of the press to state public things and discuss them, that right, as every other right enjoyed in human society, is subject to the restraints which separate right from wrong-doing.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The provision therefore, conformably to the whole history of the country, not minimizing the constitutional limitations nor restricting or qualifying the powei's granted, by necessary implication recognized and sanctioned the existence of the right of self-preservation; that is, the power to restrain aets tending to obstruct and prevent the untrammeled and unprejudiced exercise of the judicial power given by summarily treating such aets as a contempt and punishing accordingly. The test, therefore, is the character of the act done and its direct tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge of judicial duty— a conclusion which necessarily sustains the view of the statute taken by the courts below. * * *””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Not the influence upon the mind of the particular judge is the criterion but the reasonable tendency of the acts done to influence or bring about the baleful result is the test. In other words, having regard to the powers conferred, to the protection of society, to the honest and fair administration of justice and to the evil to come from its obstruction, the wrong depends upon the tendency of the acts to accomplish this result without reference to the consideration of how far they may have been without influence in a particular ease.””
4 later decisions 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.