250 So. 2d 891 - Hoffman v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably 82 Ill. 2d 444 - People v. Garrison (1980), Boss Capital, Inc. v. City of Casselberry (1999)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 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 United States v. O'Brien · Roth v. United States · Cohen v. California · Schenck v. United States · Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of Woman of Pleasure' v. Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because of the nature of the statute, the terms in question must be construed as necessarily relating to a lascivious exhibition of those private parts of a person which common propriety requires to be customarily kept covered in the presence of others. This construction necessarily also applies to the language, ‘or so to expose or exhibit his person in such place, or to go or be naked in such place.’ ” Id. at 893 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““It shall be unlawful for any person to expose or exhibit his sexual organs in any public place or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or so to expose or exhibit his person in such place, or to go or be naked in such place. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““This assertion might be applicable in other circumstances, but we find that in relation to the performance as presented, it is without merit. Appellant loses sight of the distinction between speech and conduct. The statute is not directed at First Amendment rights of free expression, nor does it concern itself with obscenity as does Fla.Stat. Chapter 847, F.S.A. Rather, it is directed at the exposure of sexual organs and nudity, a matter of conduct thought to be a crime under the common law [e. g. Commonwealth v. Broadland, 315 Mass. 20 , 51 N.E.2d 961 (1943); Noblett v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 241 , 72 S.E.2d 241 (1952)], and generally considered as having a reasonable relationship to the public welfare, and, therefore, within the police power of the Legislature.””
2 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.